What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4959393 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Teneal Marama Anahera Eru at 69 Te Rangitautahanga Road,

How much money was awarded in case 4959393?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4959393?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4959393?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10694111-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4959393 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Teneal Marama Anahera Eru at 69 Te Rangitautahanga Road,

How much money was awarded in case 4959393?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4959393?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4959393?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10694111-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

69 Te Rangitautahanga Road, Turangi, Turangi 3334 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4959393 — Rent arrears

Order

The tenancy of Teneal Marama Anahera Eru at 69 Te Rangitautahanga Road, Turangi, Turangi 3334 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 6pm on Monday 19 August 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the landlord by video and the tenant by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant has used the premises or permitted the premises to be used for any unlawful purpose. See section 40 (2) and 56 (1) (a) and (c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord had earlier applied for termination on the basis of rent arrears, but confirmed this application could be withdrawn as the arrears have been paid in full.
The evidence establishes that the tenant has both used the premises herself for the cultivation and consumption of cannabis and permitted family members to use the premises to store stolen items (including firearms, explosives and ammunition and stolen construction equipment).
The breaches are not capable of remedy so 14-day notices were not issued and are not required.
The Police attended at the property on 8 April 2024 and found several guns, explosives and ammunition in a garden shed that was locked. Ms Eru said that her family members (her nephew) had put the weapons there and locked the door.
Her nephew had also stored stolen construction equipment in a separate shed. The Police seized this equipment as well.
Ms Eru said her nephew had asked her if he could use the shed for storage and she had agreed to help him out. He did not ask her permission to use the smaller shed that he locked without her knowledge. He has been charged with burglary and other charges and has recently been released from prison. He is allowed back to Turangi and there is a non-association order in place meaning he cannot contact her.
In relation to the cannabis found at the property; Ms Eru said that she had grown this for her own use as she suffers from chronic pain. She is now attempting to access prescription cannabis.
The Tribunal may order termination of the tenancy if satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse to make the order. See section 56A(3) RTA. Inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe), the Court considered the application of section 56(1)(c), which requires consideration of whether 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 Court set out a range of factors that would be relevant in that case, being: (a)The history of the tenancy. (b)Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. (c)Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. (d)Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. (e)The conduct of the landlord. (f)The gravity of the breach. (g)Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
I have determined that it would be inequitable to refuse the termination order requested.
Ms Eru permitted her nephew to use the two sheds which are part of the /facilities premises and he used them for an unlawful purpose.
The firearms and explosives found there mean the stolen goods posed a significant safety risk to the community and the offending is therefore significantly serious.
Termination may have been considered disproportionate in relation to the drug offending alone, given the tenant’s evidence that the cannabis was for her personal use and only a minimal quantity was found.
However, cultivation and consumption of cannabis remains unlawful (unless prescribed which was not the case here) and when that criminal offending is considered alongside the storage of the dangerous stolen items outlined, then in my view it is not disproportionate to end the tenancy as requested by the landlord.
The possession order is made, the date is to allow the tenant two weeks to find alternative accommodation.
The landlord requested suppression. As the application is successful that request is granted. The public interest requires that the tenant’s name is published.

Order

The tenancy of Teneal Marama Anahera Eru at 69 Te Rangitautahanga Road, Turangi, Turangi 3334 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 6pm on Monday 19 August 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the landlord by video and the tenant by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant has used the premises or permitted the premises to be used for any unlawful purpose. See section 40 (2) and 56 (1) (a) and (c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord had earlier applied for termination on the basis of rent arrears, but confirmed this application could be withdrawn as the arrears have been paid in full.
The evidence establishes that the tenant has both used the premises herself for the cultivation and consumption of cannabis and permitted family members to use the premises to store stolen items (including firearms, explosives and ammunition and stolen construction equipment).
The breaches are not capable of remedy so 14-day notices were not issued and are not required.
The Police attended at the property on 8 April 2024 and found several guns, explosives and ammunition in a garden shed that was locked. Ms Eru said that her family members (her nephew) had put the weapons there and locked the door.
Her nephew had also stored stolen construction equipment in a separate shed. The Police seized this equipment as well.
Ms Eru said her nephew had asked her if he could use the shed for storage and she had agreed to help him out. He did not ask her permission to use the smaller shed that he locked without her knowledge. He has been charged with burglary and other charges and has recently been released from prison. He is allowed back to Turangi and there is a non-association order in place meaning he cannot contact her.
In relation to the cannabis found at the property; Ms Eru said that she had grown this for her own use as she suffers from chronic pain. She is now attempting to access prescription cannabis.
The Tribunal may order termination of the tenancy if satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse to make the order. See section 56A(3) RTA. Inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe), the Court considered the application of section 56(1)(c), which requires consideration of whether 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 Court set out a range of factors that would be relevant in that case, being: (a)The history of the tenancy. (b)Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. (c)Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. (d)Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. (e)The conduct of the landlord. (f)The gravity of the breach. (g)Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
I have determined that it would be inequitable to refuse the termination order requested.
Ms Eru permitted her nephew to use the two sheds which are part of the /facilities premises and he used them for an unlawful purpose.
The firearms and explosives found there mean the stolen goods posed a significant safety risk to the community and the offending is therefore significantly serious.
Termination may have been considered disproportionate in relation to the drug offending alone, given the tenant’s evidence that the cannabis was for her personal use and only a minimal quantity was found.
However, cultivation and consumption of cannabis remains unlawful (unless prescribed which was not the case here) and when that criminal offending is considered alongside the storage of the dangerous stolen items outlined, then in my view it is not disproportionate to end the tenancy as requested by the landlord.
The possession order is made, the date is to allow the tenant two weeks to find alternative accommodation.
The landlord requested suppression. As the application is successful that request is granted. The public interest requires that the tenant’s name is published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4959393 — Rent arrears at 69 Te Rangitautahanga Road, Turangi, Turangi 3334

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4959393 — Rent arrears at 69 Te Rangitautahanga Road, Turangi, Turangi 3334

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions