What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4727249 about?

The published order could not be summarised from available data.

How much money was awarded in case 4727249?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4727249?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4727249?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9845383-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4727249 about?

The published order could not be summarised from available data.

How much money was awarded in case 4727249?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4727249?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4727249?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9845383-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4727249 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

[The landlord/s] attended the hearing by teleconference, as did [The tenant/s].
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations that is incapable of remedy, on the grounds of unlawful activity on the property.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable of remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
The landlord suggested that the tenant has breached his obligations by manufacturing, growing and selling drugs at or from the property. They said they were told by a police officer who visited their property, confirmed via an email from him dated 1 November 2023, that there was evidence of heavy methamphetamine use, cannabis plants being grown and a class B drug also being manufactured inside the house. The police officer told them there was further evidence that cannabis was being sold from the house and illegal drugs were being consumed on the premises. The police officer believed there was a risk to the health of the other tenant in the adjoining flat from the manufacture of class A & B drugs and a risk of violence from being around a drug environment. The landlord immediately applied for termination of the tenancy based on this information from a police officer. They clarified the police officer said he had tried to visit them 2-3 times without success before speaking with them. I note there was an email from the police officer but that this information was not provided on New Zealand Police letterhead, as per official notifications
The tenant provided confirmation by way of an Order for a sentence of community work, that he was charged with possession/use of utensils, cultivate cannabis, possess/procure cannabis plant and possess/procure cannabis oil, and that on 18 September 2023 he was given 40 hours of community work as a sentence for these charges, which originated from a police visit to and investigation of the property in July 2023.
The tenant said that, until late 2022 he was in a relationship with somebody who used methamphetamine, off the property, that he told her to leave the property in late 2022 and had been involved in a custody battle for their 4-year-old daughter since then. He believed the pipe found by the police, which he said he did not know was at the property, came from his former partner.
The tenant maintained that he does not use methamphetamine and has tested negative in drug tests for methamphetamine and other drugs. He provided confirmation of negative drug tests in July 2023. The tenant said further that he attends his medical centre every fortnight for a painful medical condition and so would have been tested by them, had they suspected any drug use on his part, and that he has ongoing drug testing to come as part of his custody case. The tenant said he has applied for a cannabis licence to be able to use cannabis products to reduce his high pain levels from his medical condition but the licence has not yet come through. He said his GP is aware of this. He claimed he started to grow a few small cannabis plants for his own use in the spare room and felt he had made a bad choice from doing so. He maintained these few cannabis plants are what the police found on their investigative visit. He said he often has his young daughter in his care, supervised, and has his daughter’s maternal grandmother to stay regularly also.
The tenant said he was horrified to read the police officer’s email filed by the landlord and maintained it was untrue. He stated he would have been charged with selling drugs or manufacturing methamphetamine if there had been evidence of this, but he had not been so charged. He said further that, had his charges been more serious, as alleged by the police officer’s email, he would not have received a sentence of 40 hours community work.
In response to the landlord’s allegation that there were lots of people coming and going from his property, the tenant said he has been struggling since his separation and with the custody case and has had many friends visiting him to provide him with support, along with social workers and his budget advisor. He was adamant he does not sell drugs from the property and has never done so.
The tenant believed the police officer who provided the email had a vendetta against him, as the tenant had refused to become a police informant, as requested. The tenant said he intends on filing a complaint to the police about the email provided by this police officer.
Section 40(2)(b) RTA provides that, among other matters, a tenant shall not use premises, or permit the premises to be used for any unlawful purpose.
I find it odd that the police officer’s information was provided via email from him personally, rather than on official police letterhead, and that the email was dated 1 November 2023 which post-dated the charges of the tenants’ being dealt with by the court on 18 September 2023. The police officer did not disclose in his email that the tenant’s charges had already been dealt with and that he received a community work order. As such, I am reluctant to place much weight on the police officer’s email.
The tenant admitted, however, that he grew a few cannabis plants for his own use at the property and used cannabis products for his pain relief. He denied manufacturing methamphetamine or selling drugs from the property and was not charged with those offences. Yet, the tenant’s admission supports the view that the tenant used the premises for an unlawful purpose. Having come to that conclusion, I must consider whether it is inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

Is it inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

In exercising the discretion under section 56 RTA, I need to consider whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the Court, at paragraph 61, set out the factors which are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy; b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings; c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with his obligations in the future; d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed; e. The conduct of the landlord; f. The gravity of the breach; g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The tenancy began on 12 August 2022. There was no evidence of any other major issues with the tenancy. The landlord mentioned the tenant had got behind with the rent at one point, but later caught up with rent payments.
No evidence was provided by the landlord of any warnings given to the tenant in relation to breaches of this type.
The evidence of the tenant is that his charges have been dealt with and he received community work, that he was not charged with manufacturing methamphetamine or selling drugs from the property and that the few cannabis plants he grew were for his own use for pain relief from his medical condition. He provided evidence of a negative drug test in July 2023 and reports from his GP of his medical condition. Given his custody case, he said he is highly motivated to comply with his tenancy obligations, as he wants to keep his place where his daughter can live with him.
The breach is of a type where the breach was deliberately committed.
There is no evidence of any misconduct by the landlord.
The gravity of the tenant’s conduct is not as severe as what was alleged in the police officer’s email, as the tenant was not charged with manufacturing methamphetamine or selling drugs from the property and explained the old pipe found belonged to his former partner who has not lived at the property for some time. The tenant’s evidence was that the cannabis plants and products were for his personal use, for pain relief.
The gravity of a termination of the tenancy for the tenant would be severe. The tenant is trying to get back on his feet after a separation and with a custody case, having dealt with his charges, and said he wants to retain his place as his daughter has lived there with him and he wants a home for he and his daughter. In my view, the termination of the tenancy would outweigh the seriousness of the breach and would not be a proportionate response. Conclusion
The landlord did not provide any further supporting evidence, other than the email from the police officer, as dealt with above, that such a breach by the tenant is incapable of remedy. As such, I find there in insufficient evidence to prove that the breach by the tenant was incapable of remedy. The landlord had not provided any 14-day notices to the tenant in relation to any breaches capable of remedy either. I am not satisfied it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, as outlined above. Therefore, the claim is dismissed. Suppression
Both parties requested suppression.
Section 95A(4) RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of a party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord was shocked by the information they received from the police officer and filed the claim based on that information. The tenant has dealt with his charges and is trying to move forward, after a separation and with a custody case. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the interests of both parties outweigh the public interest in publishing their names. Therefore, I order that the names and identifying details of the landlord and tenant are not to be published.

Reasons

[The landlord/s] attended the hearing by teleconference, as did [The tenant/s].

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations that is incapable of remedy, on the grounds of unlawful activity on the property.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable of remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.

However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.

The landlord suggested that the tenant has breached his obligations by manufacturing, growing and selling drugs at or from the property. They said they were told by a police officer who visited their property, confirmed via an email from him dated 1 November 2023, that there was evidence of heavy methamphetamine use, cannabis plants being grown and a class B drug also being manufactured inside the house. The police officer told them there was further evidence that cannabis was being sold from the house and illegal drugs were being consumed on the premises. The police officer believed there was a risk to the health of the other tenant in the adjoining flat from the manufacture of class A & B drugs and a risk of violence from being around a drug environment. The landlord immediately applied for termination of the tenancy based on this information from a police officer. They clarified the police officer said he had tried to visit them 2-3 times without success before speaking with them. I note there was an email from the police officer but that this information was not provided on New Zealand Police letterhead, as per official notifications

The tenant provided confirmation by way of an Order for a sentence of community work, that he was charged with possession/use of utensils, cultivate cannabis, possess/procure cannabis plant and possess/procure cannabis oil, and that on 18 September 2023 he was given 40 hours of community work as a sentence for these charges, which originated from a police visit to and investigation of the property in July 2023.

The tenant said that, until late 2022 he was in a relationship with somebody who used methamphetamine, off the property, that he told her to leave the property in late 2022 and had been involved in a custody battle for their 4-year-old daughter since then. He believed the pipe found by the police, which he said he did not know was at the property, came from his former partner.

The tenant maintained that he does not use methamphetamine and has tested negative in drug tests for methamphetamine and other drugs. He provided confirmation of negative drug tests in July 2023. The tenant said further that he attends his medical centre every fortnight for a painful medical condition and so would have been tested by them, had they suspected any drug use on his part, and that he has ongoing drug testing to come as part of his custody case. The tenant said he has applied for a cannabis licence to be able to use cannabis products to reduce his high pain levels from his medical condition but the licence has not yet come through. He said his GP is aware of this. He claimed he started to grow a few small cannabis plants for his own use in the spare room and felt he had made a bad choice from doing so. He maintained these few cannabis plants are what the police found on their investigative visit. He said he often has his young daughter in his care, supervised, and has his daughter’s maternal grandmother to stay regularly also.

The tenant said he was horrified to read the police officer’s email filed by the landlord and maintained it was untrue. He stated he would have been charged with selling drugs or manufacturing methamphetamine if there had been evidence of this, but he had not been so charged. He said further that, had his charges been more serious, as alleged by the police officer’s email, he would not have received a sentence of 40 hours community work.

In response to the landlord’s allegation that there were lots of people coming and going from his property, the tenant said he has been struggling since his separation and with the custody case and has had many friends visiting him to provide him with support, along with social workers and his budget advisor. He was adamant he does not sell drugs from the property and has never done so.

The tenant believed the police officer who provided the email had a vendetta against him, as the tenant had refused to become a police informant, as requested. The tenant said he intends on filing a complaint to the police about the email provided by this police officer.

Section 40(2)(b) RTA provides that, among other matters, a tenant shall not use premises, or permit the premises to be used for any unlawful purpose.

I find it odd that the police officer’s information was provided via email from him personally, rather than on official police letterhead, and that the email was dated 1 November 2023 which post-dated the charges of the tenants’ being dealt with by the court on 18 September 2023. The police officer did not disclose in his email that the tenant’s charges had already been dealt with and that he received a community work order. As such, I am reluctant to place much weight on the police officer’s email.

The tenant admitted, however, that he grew a few cannabis plants for his own use at the property and used cannabis products for his pain relief. He denied manufacturing methamphetamine or selling drugs from the property and was not charged with those offences. Yet, the tenant’s admission supports the view that the tenant used the premises for an unlawful purpose. Having come to that conclusion, I must consider whether it is inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

Is it inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

In exercising the discretion under section 56 RTA, I need to consider whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the Court, at paragraph 61, set out the factors which are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy; b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings; c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with his obligations in the future; d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed; e. The conduct of the landlord; f. The gravity of the breach; g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.

The tenancy began on 12 August 2022. There was no evidence of any other major issues with the tenancy. The landlord mentioned the tenant had got behind with the rent at one point, but later caught up with rent payments.

No evidence was provided by the landlord of any warnings given to the tenant in relation to breaches of this type.

The evidence of the tenant is that his charges have been dealt with and he received community work, that he was not charged with manufacturing methamphetamine or selling drugs from the property and that the few cannabis plants he grew were for his own use for pain relief from his medical condition. He provided evidence of a negative drug test in July 2023 and reports from his GP of his medical condition. Given his custody case, he said he is highly motivated to comply with his tenancy obligations, as he wants to keep his place where his daughter can live with him.

The breach is of a type where the breach was deliberately committed.

There is no evidence of any misconduct by the landlord.

The gravity of the tenant’s conduct is not as severe as what was alleged in the police officer’s email, as the tenant was not charged with manufacturing methamphetamine or selling drugs from the property and explained the old pipe found belonged to his former partner who has not lived at the property for some time. The tenant’s evidence was that the cannabis plants and products were for his personal use, for pain relief.

The gravity of a termination of the tenancy for the tenant would be severe. The tenant is trying to get back on his feet after a separation and with a custody case, having dealt with his charges, and said he wants to retain his place as his daughter has lived there with him and he wants a home for he and his daughter. In my view, the termination of the tenancy would outweigh the seriousness of the breach and would not be a proportionate response. Conclusion

The landlord did not provide any further supporting evidence, other than the email from the police officer, as dealt with above, that such a breach by the tenant is incapable of remedy. As such, I find there in insufficient evidence to prove that the breach by the tenant was incapable of remedy. The landlord had not provided any 14-day notices to the tenant in relation to any breaches capable of remedy either. I am not satisfied it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, as outlined above. Therefore, the claim is dismissed. Suppression

Both parties requested suppression.

Section 95A(4) RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of a party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

The landlord was shocked by the information they received from the police officer and filed the claim based on that information. The tenant has dealt with his charges and is trying to move forward, after a separation and with a custody case. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the interests of both parties outweigh the public interest in publishing their names. Therefore, I order that the names and identifying details of the landlord and tenant are not to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4727249 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4727249 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Is it inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Is it inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions