What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4803840 about?

The tribunal order states: By consent, the tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 5 Mongorry Place, Mount Roskill,

How much money was awarded in case 4803840?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4803840?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4803840?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10025641-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4803840 about?

The tribunal order states: By consent, the tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 5 Mongorry Place, Mount Roskill,

How much money was awarded in case 4803840?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4803840?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4803840?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10025641-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

5 Mongorry Place, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4803840 — 14-day notice

Order

By consent, the tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 5 Mongorry Place, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 will end at 11:59pm on 25 February 2024, and possession will be granted to Fahey Property Management Limited As Agent For Miriam Gibbs.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy commenced on 10 January 2024 and was a fixed term for one year.
The landlord filed the application for termination barely a month later on 9 February 2024.
The landlord has applied to terminate the tenancy on the basis of a breach of the tenancy agreement which requires only one person to occupy the premises, together with an allegation of using the premises for unlawful activity and a “positive” test of methamphetamine.
The tenant denies the breaches, and notes that no 14-day notice to remedy was issued.
The tenant wishes to leave the tenancy given the approach of the landlord. Accordingly, the tenancy will terminate, by agreement, on 25 February 2024.
I am not awarding compensation for the early termination of the fixed term, as I consider the landlord’s actions have brought about the end of the tenancy.

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 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.
The landlord alleges the tenant has breached their obligations by misrepresentation in her application for a tenancy, having her partner reside with her, in breach of the single occupant clause of the agreement, smoking cannabis and methamphetamine in contravention of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
The main concern for the landlord is the presence of the tenant’s partner who is on “probation” although not subject to electronic monitoring. The landlord appears to have got this information from the Department of Corrections. Which is concerning, given the legislation around Privacy.
There was no evidence before me to conclude that the tenant’s partner was even living at the address, until the tenant accepted that he was living there until she was advised that she was only allowed one occupant at the premises. This concession is a credit to the tenant.
When the tenant became aware that she was only supposed to have one occupant at the address, her partner moved in with his mother. It is agreed that for the two weeks up to this hearing he has not lived at the address.
No 14-day notice was issued in relation to this “breach”. Accordingly, the application to the Tribunal on this basis is premature and inappropriate. This is particularly so, given the tenant complied with the verbal request that her partner not live there.
In relation to the consumption of drugs, the tenant provided the landlord with evidence of her partner’s prescription for medical cannabis, which would allow the consumption of cannabis. This is not an unlawful activity in the circumstances.
I note that the landlord also relied on the “no smoking” provision of the tenancy agreement and a 14-day notice issued for that. However, there is no evidence that smoking was inside the house, nor is there any evidence that the smoking continued after the issuing of the 14-day notice.
In relation to the methamphetamine allegation, the landlord has filed a composite test result showing result from 7 swaps with a reading of 0.6μg. This is significantly below the recommended decontamination level of 1.5μg and hugely below unacceptable contamination level of 15μg per 100cm 2 set out in the “Gluckman Report” and adopted by the Court in the case of Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper 2019 NZDC 4947 CIV-2018-0092490 where it said that the “Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge to the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings”.
Pg. 28 of the Gluckman report, which looks at composite tests and notes:
The Gluckman report advises against composite testing on the basis that composite testing can result in a false positive “that is, detecting a level of
5ug/100cm 2 (or slightly above) from a composite field sample that adds the readings from all swabs together. Such field composite testing means that every sample can be below the standard, but when combined can raise the overall result, triggering another round of expensive testing.” That is, of course, correct. It would be possible, for example, that 5 discrete swaps would each show readings of 0.4μg/100cm 2 which when added together as a composite would exceed 1.5μg/100cm 2 (being 2ug).
But even that is not the case here. The composite total was 0.6μg/100cm 2 from 7 swabs. This is not a case where there was any risk of a false positive result, this is very clearly a negative result for methamphetamine, and the landlord’s allegation in relation to methamphetamine is entirely spurious.
I was further concerned to note that the landlord is well aware of this fact, as the cover email to the Tribunal, enclosing the methamphetamine testing results states “Attached is the Methamphetamine positive test. Below levels but still so unacceptable. We request immediate termination”.
In relation to the allegation that false information was provided on the tenancy application, this would appear to relate to a referee offered as a reference. Prior to the tenancy, the landlord did not, or could not, contact the person named. They have since found a Tribunal order relating to that tenancy and sought out information from the person named in the Order (who is not the person named as referee). That person then recommended the landlord “file in the Tribunal”. Again, I am concerned about the potential privacy breaches of this action. While the landlord claims that she did not tell the previous landlord that the tenant was her tenant or tell him why she was calling, I am somewhat cynical of this explanation, given the response received. The response would be somewhat unusual without context.
The evidence falls well short of providing a basis for concluding that the tenant has made misrepresentations about her referee, about her employment (the landlord alleges a “fake” LinkedIn profile) or her status as a student (again the landlord has alleged this cannot be corroborated, although I note she has not asked the tenant for any evidence of the fact she is a student).
The landlord appears to have reacted to a dislike of the tenant’s partner and taken hasty action to terminate the tenancy without any attempts at communication or consideration for an appropriate process, including notice to remedy a breach.
On that basis, an order for termination of the tenancy would be entirely inappropriate.
Given the tenant’s desire to leave the premises, however, I record the parties’ agreement that the tenancy will terminate on 25 February 2024 by consent.
As the tenant has been wholly successful in the defence of the landlord’s claim, I have ordered suppression of name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4803840 — 14-day notice at 5 Mongorry Place, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4803840 — 14-day notice at 5 Mongorry Place, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions