What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4855446 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4855446?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4855446?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4855446?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10276950-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4855446 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4855446?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4855446?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4855446?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10276950-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4855446 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Green and Ms Cammock represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied to terminate the tenancy using or permitting the premises to be used for an unlawful act.
The claim was brought against the tenant named in the tenancy agreement (the first named tenant) but also the person named, in the tenancy agreement, as an emergency contact for the tenant (the second named tenant). Ms Green and Ms Cammock said that they believed that the second named tenant is a guarantor for the tenancy, but they did not provide evidence (such as the signed guarantee) to support their belief. The claim against the second named tenant is therefore dismissed.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlords’ 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."
The landlord claims that section 40(2)(b) has been breached by the smoking of methamphetamine in the premises. The claim is based on the results of 10 samples taken from the premises and tested by Hill Laboratories on 3 April 2024. The report of the testing records a composite result for methamphetamine of 0.80 μg/100cm2 with a “potential maximum in a single sample” of 7.2 μg/100cm2.
The premises were previously tested for methamphetamine on 3 February 2022, approximately two weeks before this tenancy started (on 19 February 2022), and that test showed a composite result of 0.02 μg/100cm2 with a maximum potential in a single sample of 0.18 μg/100cm2.
The tenant denies that she or anyone else at the premises with her permission smoked methamphetamine at the premises. She gave me no reason to doubt her evidence.
I am 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 or any other person at the premises with her permission has smoked methamphetamine at the premises.
The detected level is a composite result only of the 10 samples taken and is 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. In particular, the 4 April result includes testing of the garage whereas the garage was not tested in February 2022. It is therefore possible that the methamphetamine detected by Hill Laboratories could be from the garage only and, if so, the contamination could have occurred before this tenancy commenced.
The landlord has therefore not established that the tenant has breached section 40(2)(b) of the Act and the application for termination is dismissed. Suppression
The tenant applied for a suppression order at the hearing.
Pursuant to section 95A of the Act, the Tribunal can order that a party’s name and identifying details not be published if that party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The tenant has been wholly successful in her defence to the landlord’s claim and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply.
I therefore order that the name and identifying details of both the first named tenant and the second named tenant be suppressed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Green and Ms Cammock represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied to terminate the tenancy using or permitting the premises to be used for an unlawful act.
The claim was brought against the tenant named in the tenancy agreement (the first named tenant) but also the person named, in the tenancy agreement, as an emergency contact for the tenant (the second named tenant). Ms Green and Ms Cammock said that they believed that the second named tenant is a guarantor for the tenancy, but they did not provide evidence (such as the signed guarantee) to support their belief. The claim against the second named tenant is therefore dismissed.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlords’ 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."
The landlord claims that section 40(2)(b) has been breached by the smoking of methamphetamine in the premises. The claim is based on the results of 10 samples taken from the premises and tested by Hill Laboratories on 3 April 2024. The report of the testing records a composite result for methamphetamine of 0.80 μg/100cm2 with a “potential maximum in a single sample” of 7.2 μg/100cm2.
The premises were previously tested for methamphetamine on 3 February 2022, approximately two weeks before this tenancy started (on 19 February 2022), and that test showed a composite result of 0.02 μg/100cm2 with a maximum potential in a single sample of 0.18 μg/100cm2.
The tenant denies that she or anyone else at the premises with her permission smoked methamphetamine at the premises. She gave me no reason to doubt her evidence.
I am 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 or any other person at the premises with her permission has smoked methamphetamine at the premises.
The detected level is a composite result only of the 10 samples taken and is 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. In particular, the 4 April result includes testing of the garage whereas the garage was not tested in February 2022. It is therefore possible that the methamphetamine detected by Hill Laboratories could be from the garage only and, if so, the contamination could have occurred before this tenancy commenced.
The landlord has therefore not established that the tenant has breached section 40(2)(b) of the Act and the application for termination is dismissed. Suppression
The tenant applied for a suppression order at the hearing.
Pursuant to section 95A of the Act, the Tribunal can order that a party’s name and identifying details not be published if that party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The tenant has been wholly successful in her defence to the landlord’s claim and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply.
I therefore order that the name and identifying details of both the first named tenant and the second named tenant be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4855446 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4855446 — 14-day notice

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