What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4858760?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Frances Mela Martin and Shannon Taimania Heemi at 360

How much money was awarded in case 4858760?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4858760?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4858760?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10253602-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4858760?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Frances Mela Martin and Shannon Taimania Heemi at 360

How much money was awarded in case 4858760?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4858760?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4858760?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10253602-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

360 Creightons Road, Clevedon, RD 2, Clevedon 2582 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4858760 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Frances Mela Martin and Shannon Taimania Heemi at 360 Creightons Road, Clevedon, RD 2, Clevedon 2582 is terminated, and possession is granted to Legacy Portfolio Management Limited and Phil and Mary Goff immediately. This order can be enforced with immediate effect.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord, seeking an immediate termination of the tenancy on the ground that the tenants have engaged in unlawful activities at the premises, in particular operating a methamphetamine laboratory from the dwelling.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 1 February 2024, and is a periodic tenancy. The tenancy agreement records that the property manager is Legacy Portfolio Management Limited as an agent for the landlords, being Mr and Mrs Goff. The tenants are Frances Mela Martin and Shannon Taimania Heemi.
A Police Statement has been provided from Detective Senior Sergeant Williams dated 16 April 2024, stating in summary: a. The Police executed a search warrant at the premises on 10 April 2024. b. The occupants at the premises refused to leave the dwelling. After one hour a female left the address who said she was the “occupant”. After another hour a male and children left the premises, and then after a further three hours, another male and children left.
The statement further records:
Whilst clearing a caravan on the property they immediately identified what appeared to be a clandestine methamphetamine lab ...
Whilst the house was cordoned an occupant inside began burning items in the fireplace at the address, when police later examined the fireplace contained a number of electronic devices including laptops. ...
It is believed the male was trying to destroy evidence relating to the manufacture of methamphetamine whilst in the house. ...
The Police Clan Lab team conducted an examination of the caravan and the dwelling. A clan lab set up comprising of heat source par bomb a distillation condenser and unknown liquids, cooling system were located in the caravan. Likely used to manufacture Methamphetamine.
Iodine, which is a precurser chemical used for the manufacture of methamphetamine was located within the main house and bathroom.
Once Clan Lab had finished, Police searched the rest of the property and located several items of interest, ...
Analysis of these items, including electronic devices are ongoing.
Two firearms were located inside the main dwelling as well as a large number of different calibre rounds of ammunition.
One adult male was arrested and charged for Methamphetamine related charges and obstruction and is before the courts for this.
On 11 April 2024 the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal seeking a termination of the tenancy.
A telephone hearing was convened on 24 April 2024. In attendance were the Property Manager and Landlord, and both tenants.

POSITION OF THE LANDLORD

The landlord seeks a termination of the tenancy on the ground of there being firearms and a methamphetamine laboratory found on the premises.
The landlord relies on the statement provided by the Police as well as other reports received from neighbours.
In response to the defence raised by the tenants (as I will set out shortly), the landlord and property manager stated that: a. They understand the Police were at the premises for around 12 hours. b. There were two separate episodes where armed Police came to the premises. c. They have had numerous calls with Police directly. d. Mr Goff understands that it was “hours” before all people in the dwelling came out. e. There is an inference that can be drawn for why the occupants did not leave the premises when required to by Police. f. It must be unlikely that if one of the ‘firearms’ was only a toy gun, that Police would not have recognised that. g. It would be unusual for someone to burn their laptop in the fire to dispose of it, but not inconsistent with someone attempting to dispose of evidence.

TENANTS POSITION

In response, the tenants oppose the termination request.
The tenants apologised to the landlord regarding the situation, but the tenants dispute that the Police statement was accurate for these reasons: a. The author of the Police statement was not present at the time the warrant was executed. b. It is disputed that there were so many occupants who refused to exit the premises, only one male (a tenant’s partner) and children refused to leave, otherwise, the other occupants did leave. c. It is disputed that the male tried to destroy belongings other than two laptops which were his belongings. d. It is disputed that there was a methamphetamine laboratory at the premises. The tenant advised me that in order to manufacture methamphetamine you would need other materials which were not found by Police, all that the Police found were pre-cursors to methamphetamine manufacture. e. Of the firearms reported by Police, one was a toy gun, and the other gun belonged to an occupant’s father, and the ammunition was found in his car. f. The material found in the caravan was being stored for another person.
The tenants state they wish to challenge the Police search which they consider to be illegal, which explains why they did not exit the house when directed by Police.
The tenants initially disputed that there was a second episode with the Police as stated by the landlord. The tenants then said that the second raid was related to a friend and a burglary of another property, it is disputed that the house was raided, but the person arrested was at the premises.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the landlord in this case), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

ANALYSIS

The Tribunal must consider whether a termination of the tenancy can be ordered.
The application is made on the basis of section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Section 56 is a general termination provision, and is as follows: 56 Termination for non-payment of rent and other breaches (1) On an application made to it under this section by the landlord or the tenant, the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that— (a) the other party has committed a breach of any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement (including provisions relating to the payment of rent) or of this Act; and (b) in the case of a breach capable of remedy,— (i) the applicant gave to the other party a notice specifying the nature of the breach complained of and requiring the other party to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days commencing with the day on which the notice was given; and (ii) the other party failed to remedy the default within the required period; and (c) that the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
The breach claimed in this case is that the tenants have engaged in unlawful activities at the premises. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s obligations, and that includes at subsection 2(b) that the tenant shall not: use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose;
Having considered the evidence available, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the tenants have allowed the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. While there are potentially a number of offences that the parties have raised in the course of the hearing, for the purpose of this decision it is necessary to only focus on one, that is the allegation from the Police that the tenants or other occupants were engaged with the manufacture of methamphetamine.
The tenants dispute the accuracy of the Police statement, and in effect submitted that no weight should be placed on it. I do not accept that submission, I can accept that the statement provided was a summary of the situation as Police assessed it to be. It must be emphasised that the hearing in the Tribunal is a civil proceeding, and to prove the landlord’s claim, the landlord does not need to prove it to the criminal law standard which is evidence beyond reasonable doubt, but the standard of the balance of probabilities. The criminal law standard to establish a criminal prosecution is much higher than the civil law standard required here.
I am also minded that the RTA confirms that the Tribunal may consider evidence at a standard that may not otherwise be admissible in a court. Section 97 of the RTA relates to Evidence, and confirms at subsection 4: Subject to section 89 1 , the Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law.
In my assessment, the tenants have not proven that the Police statement in relation to methamphetamine manufacture is unreliable. I am also minded that the tenants today have accepted that there were precursors found in the premises, and my impression is that they wish to distance themselves from what was happening in the caravan, because that was from another person. The tenants have also conceded that some equipment was found that would be used for methamphetamine manufacture. In my assessment, that is enough.
I agree with Mr Goff’s submission, that the Police can be accepted as having expertise with identifying methamphetamine laboratories. The clear assessment of the Police is that this tenancy was one, and the tenant’s evidence falls well short of convincing me the Police assessment was wrong.
I am also minded that the Police search was very recent, and there will still likely be matters under investigation, and/or the subject of pending charges in the criminal court. To that extent, I accept there would be limitations on what the Police could disclose or provide to the Landlord, and presumably similar limitations may apply to the tenants. But given the seriousness of the allegations here, it is not reasonable for the Tribunal to delay adjudicating this matter.
I am satisfied to the balance of probabilities that the premises were being used for an unlawful purpose – the manufacture of methamphetamine.
I must now return to section 56 of the RTA, and determine whether the tenancy can be terminated.
The breach is not capable of remedy, which means the Tribunal does not need to consider section 56(1)(b), but must consider 56(1)(a) and (c). So the questions are: a. Did the tenants breach the tenancy agreement or the RTA? If they did: 1 Section 89 relates to statements made in a mediation, which is not relevant here. b. Was the breach of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy?
In answer to the first question, the tenants have breached their obligation under the RTA not to use the premises for an unlawful purpose.
In answer to the second question, I consider it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. The breach is a serious one. It is normally the case when methamphetamine manufacture occurs, that there is considerable contamination of the premises, which in many cases results in significant damage. Based on the evidence, it is likely there were firearms on the premises, in fact, the tenant accepts there was at least one firearm present with ammunition in a vehicle. The tenant has not suggested that the person who had that firearm on the premises did so lawfully. The firearm would make it even more inequitable to refuse termination of the tenancy.
I therefore order that this tenancy terminate immediately. Immediate enforcement of termination order
It is reasonable to order that the landlord may enforce the order terminating the tenancy with immediate effect. Section 138 of the District Court Act 2016 holds that normally an order cannot be enforced until 48 hours have expired, unless a “Judge grants leave”. However, section 106(2) of the RTA which relates to enforcement of possession orders, confirms that reference to a ‘Judge’ in section 138(1) applies as if it were reference to a Tenancy Adjudicator.
This is a case where it is appropriate that leave be granted for an immediate enforcement of the possession order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4858760 — 14-day notice at 360 Creightons Road, Clevedon, RD 2, Clevedon 2582

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4858760 — 14-day notice at 360 Creightons Road, Clevedon, RD 2, Clevedon 2582

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

POSITION OF THE LANDLORD

TENANTS POSITION

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

POSITION OF THE LANDLORD

TENANTS POSITION

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions