What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4746692 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4746692?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4746692?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4746692?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9939474-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4746692 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4746692?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4746692?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4746692?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9939474-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4746692 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Berryman appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared and was supported by [ redacted].
The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy on the basis that the tenant has breached the provisions of the Act by permitting the property to be used for an unlawful purpose. The landlord submits that the breach is incapable of remedy, and they have not issued a 14-day breach notice. Apart from termination, no other compensation or damages are sought.
The onus of proving this claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Facts
On 11 November 2023, the landlord conducted an inspection of the property during which they located two juvenile cannabis plants growing in two distinct blue coloured pots at the rear of the property. Mr Berryman states that the landlord advised the tenant to remove the plants. No breach notice was issued. On 17 November 2023, a neighbour, who had CCTV surveillance over the tenant’s property, recorded the two plants concerned located in the rear of a motor vehicle at the property. On 21 November 2023, the property manager sent the tenant an email outlining concerns they had relating to the tenancy, stating that they would be taking the matter to the Tribunal seeking termination. The email is not a breach notice. The email suggests that the property manager may have believed that the cannabis plants concerned had been removed. On 28 November 2023, the same neighbour captured on CCTV the police executing a search warrant at the property. A CCTV still produced shows police at the front of the property with the two cannabis plants, in the same distinctive pots. Law
Under section 40(2) of the Act a tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. The possession or cultivation of cannabis is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
Under section 56(1) of the Act 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.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
Where the breach complained of is not capable of remedy the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice. A breach is not capable of remedy where the thing done, or its effects cannot be undone. For example, drug dealing from the property, which carries a lasting stigma, consuming or manufacturing methamphetamine resulting in damage by contamination, and assault, are typically acts incapable of remedy. Conversely, simply possessing, or consuming drugs such as cannabis, or methamphetamine, without causing damage by contamination, are often seen as breaches capable of remedy, thus requiring notice be given. See Clarke v Housing New Zealand DC Blenheim CIV -2008 – 006 – 33, 19 March 2008, Terangi v Housing New Zealand Corporation DC Porirua CIV – 2010 – 091 – 110, 28 June 2010. Decision
The breach is not disputed. The tenant states that he let a female stay at the property who unbeknownst to himself cultivated the two cannabis plants at the rear of the property. Section 41 (1) of the Act states that tenants are responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission. There is no suggestion that the female was at the property without the tenant’s permission. The tenant is liable for the actions of the female and the resultant breach.
The issue in this case is whether the breach, the unlawful use of the property, namely the cultivation of or possession of cannabis was a breach that was not capable of remedy, not requiring notice. If the breach is one deemed capable of remedy and the landlord has not served a notice the claim for termination will fail.
In my view the breach falls into the category of acts or omissions capable of remedy. The thing done, in this case the possession of the two plants, could have been undone. Removal of the plants would have remedied the breach. There is no evidence of drug dealing. The number of plants does not indicate that they were being grown for the purposes of sale or supply. Anticipating that they might rely on the breach as grounds for termination, the landlord was obliged to issue the tenant with a 14-day notice to remove the plants. They did not. As stated, the email of 21 November 2023, was not a 14-day notice. Had it been so, requiring the tenant to remove the plants, they were subsequently removed on behalf of the tenant by the police on 28 November 2023, thus remedying the breach.
The claim for termination under section 56(1) of the Act is dismissed. Costs
There is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has been wholly successful and is granted name suppression. There are no grounds to suppress the landlord’s details.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Berryman appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared and was supported by [ redacted].
The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy on the basis that the tenant has breached the provisions of the Act by permitting the property to be used for an unlawful purpose. The landlord submits that the breach is incapable of remedy, and they have not issued a 14-day breach notice. Apart from termination, no other compensation or damages are sought.
The onus of proving this claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Facts
On 11 November 2023, the landlord conducted an inspection of the property during which they located two juvenile cannabis plants growing in two distinct blue coloured pots at the rear of the property. Mr Berryman states that the landlord advised the tenant to remove the plants. No breach notice was issued. On 17 November 2023, a neighbour, who had CCTV surveillance over the tenant’s property, recorded the two plants concerned located in the rear of a motor vehicle at the property. On 21 November 2023, the property manager sent the tenant an email outlining concerns they had relating to the tenancy, stating that they would be taking the matter to the Tribunal seeking termination. The email is not a breach notice. The email suggests that the property manager may have believed that the cannabis plants concerned had been removed. On 28 November 2023, the same neighbour captured on CCTV the police executing a search warrant at the property. A CCTV still produced shows police at the front of the property with the two cannabis plants, in the same distinctive pots. Law
Under section 40(2) of the Act a tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. The possession or cultivation of cannabis is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
Under section 56(1) of the Act 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.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
Where the breach complained of is not capable of remedy the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice. A breach is not capable of remedy where the thing done, or its effects cannot be undone. For example, drug dealing from the property, which carries a lasting stigma, consuming or manufacturing methamphetamine resulting in damage by contamination, and assault, are typically acts incapable of remedy. Conversely, simply possessing, or consuming drugs such as cannabis, or methamphetamine, without causing damage by contamination, are often seen as breaches capable of remedy, thus requiring notice be given. See Clarke v Housing New Zealand DC Blenheim CIV -2008 – 006 – 33, 19 March 2008, Terangi v Housing New Zealand Corporation DC Porirua CIV – 2010 – 091 – 110, 28 June 2010. Decision
The breach is not disputed. The tenant states that he let a female stay at the property who unbeknownst to himself cultivated the two cannabis plants at the rear of the property. Section 41 (1) of the Act states that tenants are responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission. There is no suggestion that the female was at the property without the tenant’s permission. The tenant is liable for the actions of the female and the resultant breach.
The issue in this case is whether the breach, the unlawful use of the property, namely the cultivation of or possession of cannabis was a breach that was not capable of remedy, not requiring notice. If the breach is one deemed capable of remedy and the landlord has not served a notice the claim for termination will fail.
In my view the breach falls into the category of acts or omissions capable of remedy. The thing done, in this case the possession of the two plants, could have been undone. Removal of the plants would have remedied the breach. There is no evidence of drug dealing. The number of plants does not indicate that they were being grown for the purposes of sale or supply. Anticipating that they might rely on the breach as grounds for termination, the landlord was obliged to issue the tenant with a 14-day notice to remove the plants. They did not. As stated, the email of 21 November 2023, was not a 14-day notice. Had it been so, requiring the tenant to remove the plants, they were subsequently removed on behalf of the tenant by the police on 28 November 2023, thus remedying the breach.
The claim for termination under section 56(1) of the Act is dismissed. Costs
There is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has been wholly successful and is granted name suppression. There are no grounds to suppress the landlord’s details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4746692 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4746692 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions