What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4820317 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jenna Hamm at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated,

How much money was awarded in case 4820317?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4820317?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4820317?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10099637-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4820317 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jenna Hamm at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated,

How much money was awarded in case 4820317?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4820317?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4820317?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10099637-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4820317 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenancy of Jenna Hamm at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Monday 25 March 2024.

Reasons

A representative for the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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 (RTA).
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 to 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 alleged breach is synthetic drug dealing from the premises by the tenant or a person there with her consent. That is a serious breach. Section 40(2)(b) RTA states that a tenant must not use the premises, or allow them to be used, for any unlawful purpose.
The breach is not capable of remedy because the actions have already happened. That said, the landlord issued a breach notice for this unlawful activity on 14 February 2024, but the breaches have continued.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord provided evidence of the continuing nature of the tenant’s breaches. This has affected other residents nearby, some of whom feel intimidated by the nature of the activity and the cohort of people who attend the premises to purchase drugs. The evidence shows that this includes up to 20 people in an hour attending the premises.
The landlord’s representative gave evidence that she had spoken to the police and to the tenant. The police consider the offending to be low level and have taken no action.
The tenant told the landlord’s representative that the activity is not illegal, is not the landlord’s problem, and the landlord cannot prove it was her.
The standard of proof in this jurisdiction is on the balance of probabilities. So, the issue is whether the landlord has proved it is more likely than not that the tenant, or someone at the premises with her consent (whose actions she is liable for) is dealing drugs, synthetic or otherwise.
The evidence the landlord produced establishes on the balance of probabilities that the tenant, or a person at the premises with her consent, has been dealing drugs from the premises.
This is a breach not capable of remedy as it has been on-going. Even though the landlord issued a breach notice, the activity has continued, though apparently now mostly in the weekends according to the evidence produced.
It would also be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant’s actions are causing the neighbours to be fearful. That is an unacceptable breach of their quiet enjoyment. Result
The tenancy is terminated because the tenant has used the premises, or has permitted the premises to be used, for an unlawful purpose, a breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA which sets out the things a tenant must not do.
I have delayed the possession order until 25 March 2024 to allow the tenant time to find other accommodation. Name suppression
The landlord sought, and is entitled to, a name suppression order as the application is successful – see section 95A RTA.

Reasons

A representative for the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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 (RTA).

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 to 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 alleged breach is synthetic drug dealing from the premises by the tenant or a person there with her consent. That is a serious breach. Section 40(2)(b) RTA states that a tenant must not use the premises, or allow them to be used, for any unlawful purpose.

The breach is not capable of remedy because the actions have already happened. That said, the landlord issued a breach notice for this unlawful activity on 14 February 2024, but the breaches have continued.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

The landlord provided evidence of the continuing nature of the tenant’s breaches. This has affected other residents nearby, some of whom feel intimidated by the nature of the activity and the cohort of people who attend the premises to purchase drugs. The evidence shows that this includes up to 20 people in an hour attending the premises.

The landlord’s representative gave evidence that she had spoken to the police and to the tenant. The police consider the offending to be low level and have taken no action.

The tenant told the landlord’s representative that the activity is not illegal, is not the landlord’s problem, and the landlord cannot prove it was her.

The standard of proof in this jurisdiction is on the balance of probabilities. So, the issue is whether the landlord has proved it is more likely than not that the tenant, or someone at the premises with her consent (whose actions she is liable for) is dealing drugs, synthetic or otherwise.

The evidence the landlord produced establishes on the balance of probabilities that the tenant, or a person at the premises with her consent, has been dealing drugs from the premises.

This is a breach not capable of remedy as it has been on-going. Even though the landlord issued a breach notice, the activity has continued, though apparently now mostly in the weekends according to the evidence produced.

It would also be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant’s actions are causing the neighbours to be fearful. That is an unacceptable breach of their quiet enjoyment. Result

The tenancy is terminated because the tenant has used the premises, or has permitted the premises to be used, for an unlawful purpose, a breach of section 40(2)(b) RTA which sets out the things a tenant must not do.

I have delayed the possession order until 25 March 2024 to allow the tenant time to find other accommodation. Name suppression

The landlord sought, and is entitled to, a name suppression order as the application is successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4820317 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4820317 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions