How much money was awarded in case 4837722?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4837722?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4837722?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10179904-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4837722?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4837722?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4837722?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10179904-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4837722 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4837722 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants and the Landlord’s names and identifying details.
The tenancy of [the tenants] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [the landlord/s], at 11:59pm on Friday 4 April 2024.
Jack Peter Harrison Dinnage, Madison Rose Maclaurin and Luis Musngi Siazon must pay [The landlord/s] $20.44 immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. Madison Rose Maclaurin attended the hearing on behalf of all the flatmates. Jack Dinnage and Luis (Candice) Siazon both provided statements that I have read and fully considered during this hearing. Mr Tomlin, the property manager, confirmed he has provided these statements to the owner of the property and their insurer for consideration and the instructions Mr Tomlin came to the hearing with was that the insurer required the tenancy to be terminated or the owner’s insurance would be invalid.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations pursuant to clauses 14 and 15 of the tenancy agreement, being the sections that relate to insurance and possession/use of illicit substances. Clause 15(iii) of the tenancy agreement states “The tenant must not possess or take any illegal substances into the premises”. Clause 14(c) states “The tenant must not use the premises for any unlawful purpose. Without limiting this, the tenant may not do anything that would invalidate the landlord’s insurance, render the premises uninsurable and/or cause the landlord’s premium to increase”. Name suppression
The landlord made an application for name suppression in its application to the Tribunal. Being the wholly successful party, it is entitled to have its name and identifying details suppressed. Suppression is granted.
The tenants made an application during the hearing for their names and identifying details to be suppressed. The tenants have not themselves been involved in the possession of illicit drugs and two of the tenants are law students who have given compelling evidence that they knew nothing about the illicit drugs and drug paraphernalia in the garage, do not use drugs or associate with anyone who does and would never have consented to any person posing or using drugs at the rental premise.
The public interest in this matter does not outweigh the significant duress and negative impacts publishing the tenants’ names and identifying details could result in when they apply for future tenancies and/or when they apply to be admitted to the roll of Barristers and Solicitors of the High Court of New Zealand. I therefore grant them suppression of their names and identifying details.

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 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.
Ms Maclaurin gave evidence that Mr Dinnage and Ms Siazon had nothing to do with and no knowledge of the cannabis and bong that were in the garage table on the morning of 15 March 2024. Further she stated that a friend of hers had brought the bong and cannabis to the rental premises on the evening of 14 March 2024 with the intention of smoking it and she had told the friend that she would not allow the use of cannabis on the premises. She says he cleaned the bong out at the table but did not smoke any cannabis that evening, and it was bad timing that it was still sitting there when the property inspection was carried out. She says she regrets not asking the friend to remove it from the premises immediately.
Ms Maclaurin also gave evidence that she had not been aware of the property inspection as the property manager had sent the notification to Mr Dinnage, even though the property manager was aware Ms Maclaurin was the head tenant. She says she was asleep with her partner in bed when the property manager came to carry out the property inspection.
The landlord gave evidence that lawful notice of the property inspection was given, and he had also telephoned Ms Maclaurin before entering the house but got no response. He stated he also knocked loudly on the front door and on each of the bedroom doors before entering. When he found Ms Maclaurin asleep, he did not enter her room.
The property manager claimed he has been in touch with the property owner and the owner’s insurer and they have confirmed that should the tenancy continue, the owners insurance will be invalid and the premises no longer covered. This is because the insurer cannot be assured that further use and possession of illicit drugs will not continue to occur on the premises, and it is not prepared to take the risk of this type of unlawful activity potentially increasing its risk. Consequently, it has declined to continue cover if the tenancy is not terminated.
I am satisfied that the tenants have breached their obligations under the tenancy agreement and the RTA by allowing a visitor to possess a class C drug (cannabis) and drug paraphernalia (a bong) on the premises during a routine property inspection on 15 March 2024. In addition, photographic evidence gives rise to a belief that the cannabis was used on the premises as these photographs show cannabis ash in a jar, pipe cleaners covered in cannabis ash on the table next to the bong and two large heads of dried cannabis in a plastic bag as well as empty beer bottles and snack packets.
I am also satisfied that the tenants have breached s7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, in that they had in their possession a Class C controlled drug at the rental premises.
Section 40(2)(c) of the RTA requires the tenants not to “use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose”. Allowing a friend to store his cannabis and a bong on the premises is permitting the rental premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
The breach is not capable of remedy and I am satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy when the tenancy remaining on foot will result in the owners insurer refusing to continue to provide insurance cover for the premises and the owners have no way to reassure their insurer that the risk has been eliminated other than to show the tenants are no longer residing at the premises. The tenancy is terminated pursuant to s56(1)(a) and (c) of the RTA. Date the landlord will enforce the eviction order
Pursuant to s138 of the District Court Act 2016, at least 48 hours have expired after the judgment was entered or the order was made before the landlord can enforce it. Given the tenants are university students that will return from their midterm break on Monday, the landlord had confirmed that conditional on the rent being paid on time and the tenants not using the premises for an unlawful purpose, the eviction order will not be enforced until after 11:59pm on Friday 12 April 2024. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because [the applicant] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants and the Landlord’s names and identifying details.

The tenancy of [the tenants] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [the landlord/s], at 11:59pm on Friday 4 April 2024.

Jack Peter Harrison Dinnage, Madison Rose Maclaurin and Luis Musngi Siazon must pay [The landlord/s] $20.44 immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. Madison Rose Maclaurin attended the hearing on behalf of all the flatmates. Jack Dinnage and Luis (Candice) Siazon both provided statements that I have read and fully considered during this hearing. Mr Tomlin, the property manager, confirmed he has provided these statements to the owner of the property and their insurer for consideration and the instructions Mr Tomlin came to the hearing with was that the insurer required the tenancy to be terminated or the owner’s insurance would be invalid.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations pursuant to clauses 14 and 15 of the tenancy agreement, being the sections that relate to insurance and possession/use of illicit substances. Clause 15(iii) of the tenancy agreement states “The tenant must not possess or take any illegal substances into the premises”. Clause 14(c) states “The tenant must not use the premises for any unlawful purpose. Without limiting this, the tenant may not do anything that would invalidate the landlord’s insurance, render the premises uninsurable and/or cause the landlord’s premium to increase”. Name suppression

The landlord made an application for name suppression in its application to the Tribunal. Being the wholly successful party, it is entitled to have its name and identifying details suppressed. Suppression is granted.

The tenants made an application during the hearing for their names and identifying details to be suppressed. The tenants have not themselves been involved in the possession of illicit drugs and two of the tenants are law students who have given compelling evidence that they knew nothing about the illicit drugs and drug paraphernalia in the garage, do not use drugs or associate with anyone who does and would never have consented to any person posing or using drugs at the rental premise.

The public interest in this matter does not outweigh the significant duress and negative impacts publishing the tenants’ names and identifying details could result in when they apply for future tenancies and/or when they apply to be admitted to the roll of Barristers and Solicitors of the High Court of New Zealand. I therefore grant them suppression of their names and identifying details.

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 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.

Ms Maclaurin gave evidence that Mr Dinnage and Ms Siazon had nothing to do with and no knowledge of the cannabis and bong that were in the garage table on the morning of 15 March 2024. Further she stated that a friend of hers had brought the bong and cannabis to the rental premises on the evening of 14 March 2024 with the intention of smoking it and she had told the friend that she would not allow the use of cannabis on the premises. She says he cleaned the bong out at the table but did not smoke any cannabis that evening, and it was bad timing that it was still sitting there when the property inspection was carried out. She says she regrets not asking the friend to remove it from the premises immediately.

Ms Maclaurin also gave evidence that she had not been aware of the property inspection as the property manager had sent the notification to Mr Dinnage, even though the property manager was aware Ms Maclaurin was the head tenant. She says she was asleep with her partner in bed when the property manager came to carry out the property inspection.

The landlord gave evidence that lawful notice of the property inspection was given, and he had also telephoned Ms Maclaurin before entering the house but got no response. He stated he also knocked loudly on the front door and on each of the bedroom doors before entering. When he found Ms Maclaurin asleep, he did not enter her room.

The property manager claimed he has been in touch with the property owner and the owner’s insurer and they have confirmed that should the tenancy continue, the owners insurance will be invalid and the premises no longer covered. This is because the insurer cannot be assured that further use and possession of illicit drugs will not continue to occur on the premises, and it is not prepared to take the risk of this type of unlawful activity potentially increasing its risk. Consequently, it has declined to continue cover if the tenancy is not terminated.

I am satisfied that the tenants have breached their obligations under the tenancy agreement and the RTA by allowing a visitor to possess a class C drug (cannabis) and drug paraphernalia (a bong) on the premises during a routine property inspection on 15 March 2024. In addition, photographic evidence gives rise to a belief that the cannabis was used on the premises as these photographs show cannabis ash in a jar, pipe cleaners covered in cannabis ash on the table next to the bong and two large heads of dried cannabis in a plastic bag as well as empty beer bottles and snack packets.

I am also satisfied that the tenants have breached s7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, in that they had in their possession a Class C controlled drug at the rental premises.

Section 40(2)(c) of the RTA requires the tenants not to “use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose”. Allowing a friend to store his cannabis and a bong on the premises is permitting the rental premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.

The breach is not capable of remedy and I am satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy when the tenancy remaining on foot will result in the owners insurer refusing to continue to provide insurance cover for the premises and the owners have no way to reassure their insurer that the risk has been eliminated other than to show the tenants are no longer residing at the premises. The tenancy is terminated pursuant to s56(1)(a) and (c) of the RTA. Date the landlord will enforce the eviction order

Pursuant to s138 of the District Court Act 2016, at least 48 hours have expired after the judgment was entered or the order was made before the landlord can enforce it. Given the tenants are university students that will return from their midterm break on Monday, the landlord had confirmed that conditional on the rent being paid on time and the tenants not using the premises for an unlawful purpose, the eviction order will not be enforced until after 11:59pm on Friday 12 April 2024. Reimbursement of the filing fee

Because [the applicant] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4837722 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4837722 — 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