What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4750609 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4750609?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4750609?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4750609?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9785530-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4750609 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4750609?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4750609?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4750609?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9785530-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4750609 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Wilson and Ms Morrell represented the landlord company. The tenant attended by way of teleconference.
The landlord applied to terminate the tenancy and an order for exemplary damages.
The application for termination is based on section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). To terminate a tenancy for breach of this section I must be satisfied that: (i) The tenant has committed a breach of the tenancy agreement or the Act; (ii) For breaches which are capable of being remedied, the tenant has been issued with a notice requiring them to remedy the breach within a period of not less than 14 days; (iii) The tenant has failed to remedy the breach within the required period; and (iv) The breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable (unfair) to refuse to make a termination order.
The landlord claims that the tenant has breached section 40(2)(b) of the Act. That section provides that the tenant shall not "use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose." A breach of section 40(2)(b) is also declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,800.00 maybe payable.
The landlord claims that section 40(2)(b) has been breached by the using of methamphetamine in the premises. The claim is based on the results of 8 samples taken from the premises by the landlord and tested on 8 November 2023. The report records a composite result for methamphetamine of 11.1 μg/100cm2. The premises were new at the tenancy commencement and a pre tenancy test completed on 20 June 2022 returned a negative result for methamphetamine.
The tenant said that she does not and did not use methamphetamine and she does not know of any other person who used methamphetamine at the premises.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that she did not “use” the premises for an unlawful purpose, namely the use of methamphetamine. The question here is whether she "permitted" its use by someone else at the premises with her permission. ‘Permitting’ an activity taking place requires an element of knowledge of the activity and includes actual knowledge but also it includes ‘turning a blind eye to the obvious’.
It seems that the methamphetamine contamination detected on 8 November 2023 was likely caused by the father of the tenant’s child. The tenant said that she recently became aware that her child’s father, who would visit the premises and sometimes stay overnight, was living a “double life”. In particular, she said that she did not become aware that he was involved with drugs until after he went to prison for drug related offences in January 2023.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I accept the tenant’s evidence that she was unaware of her child’s father’s drug use until after he went to prison early this year, and there was nothing that could have ‘put her on notice’ that someone may have been using methamphetamine at the premises.
This is sufficient to dispose of the application, but I note too that the detected level is a composite result only of the 8 samples taken and is relatively low (levels below 15 μg/100cm² are generally considered by the Tribunal to not be contaminated to an extent where remediation is required). The evidence also does not establish which room(s) or area(s) that have the methamphetamine contamination or even whether it is in one area only. It is therefore possible that the methamphetamine detected could have occurred simply by it coming off the clothing or possessions of a person who had smoked methamphetamine elsewhere.
I am therefore not satisfied that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to establish to the standard required, that is on the balance of probabilities (or ‘more likely than not’), that the tenant is in breach of section 40(2)(b) of the Act. The application for termination and exemplary damages is therefore dismissed. Suppression
Section 95A(4) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, order that the name and identifying details of a party be suppressed.
I consider that this is an appropriate case to exercise my discretion and order suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. Given the nature of the claim and the stigma that may attach to the tenant, and given that the claim has not been proven, I do not consider there is any public interest in her name being published.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Wilson and Ms Morrell represented the landlord company. The tenant attended by way of teleconference.
The landlord applied to terminate the tenancy and an order for exemplary damages.
The application for termination is based on section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). To terminate a tenancy for breach of this section I must be satisfied that: (i) The tenant has committed a breach of the tenancy agreement or the Act; (ii) For breaches which are capable of being remedied, the tenant has been issued with a notice requiring them to remedy the breach within a period of not less than 14 days; (iii) The tenant has failed to remedy the breach within the required period; and (iv) The breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable (unfair) to refuse to make a termination order.
The landlord claims that the tenant has breached section 40(2)(b) of the Act. That section provides that the tenant shall not "use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose." A breach of section 40(2)(b) is also declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,800.00 maybe payable.
The landlord claims that section 40(2)(b) has been breached by the using of methamphetamine in the premises. The claim is based on the results of 8 samples taken from the premises by the landlord and tested on 8 November 2023. The report records a composite result for methamphetamine of 11.1 μg/100cm2. The premises were new at the tenancy commencement and a pre tenancy test completed on 20 June 2022 returned a negative result for methamphetamine.
The tenant said that she does not and did not use methamphetamine and she does not know of any other person who used methamphetamine at the premises.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that she did not “use” the premises for an unlawful purpose, namely the use of methamphetamine. The question here is whether she "permitted" its use by someone else at the premises with her permission. ‘Permitting’ an activity taking place requires an element of knowledge of the activity and includes actual knowledge but also it includes ‘turning a blind eye to the obvious’.
It seems that the methamphetamine contamination detected on 8 November 2023 was likely caused by the father of the tenant’s child. The tenant said that she recently became aware that her child’s father, who would visit the premises and sometimes stay overnight, was living a “double life”. In particular, she said that she did not become aware that he was involved with drugs until after he went to prison for drug related offences in January 2023.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I accept the tenant’s evidence that she was unaware of her child’s father’s drug use until after he went to prison early this year, and there was nothing that could have ‘put her on notice’ that someone may have been using methamphetamine at the premises.
This is sufficient to dispose of the application, but I note too that the detected level is a composite result only of the 8 samples taken and is relatively low (levels below 15 μg/100cm² are generally considered by the Tribunal to not be contaminated to an extent where remediation is required). The evidence also does not establish which room(s) or area(s) that have the methamphetamine contamination or even whether it is in one area only. It is therefore possible that the methamphetamine detected could have occurred simply by it coming off the clothing or possessions of a person who had smoked methamphetamine elsewhere.
I am therefore not satisfied that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to establish to the standard required, that is on the balance of probabilities (or ‘more likely than not’), that the tenant is in breach of section 40(2)(b) of the Act. The application for termination and exemplary damages is therefore dismissed. Suppression
Section 95A(4) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, order that the name and identifying details of a party be suppressed.
I consider that this is an appropriate case to exercise my discretion and order suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. Given the nature of the claim and the stigma that may attach to the tenant, and given that the claim has not been proven, I do not consider there is any public interest in her name being published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4750609 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4750609 — 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