What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5042750 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated,

How much money was awarded in case 5042750?

The reconciled net award was $27.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5042750?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5042750?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11245263-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5042750 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated,

How much money was awarded in case 5042750?

The reconciled net award was $27.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5042750?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5042750?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11245263-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5042750 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5pm on Friday 31 January 2025.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $27.00 for the filing fee immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 5 November and 19 December 2024.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for unlawful use of the premises.
The following methamphetamine testing was performed at the premises: • A screening test on 23 March 2021 did not detect any contamination based on a 5-sample composite. The landlord said the tenant was the first to live in the premises, which were part of a block of new apartments. The tenancy started on 27 April 2022. • Testing on 5 October 2023 identified 0.61ug/100cm² in a 5-sample composite (providing a maximum theoretical level of 3.03ug/100cm²). • Testing on 10 November 2023 identified 0.95ug/100cm² in a 6-sample composite (providing a maximum theoretical level of 5.67ug/100cm²). • Testing on 9 September 2024 identified 3.33ug/100cm² in a 4-sample composite (providing a maximum theoretical level of 13.3ug/100cm²). • Testing on 7 October 2024 identified methamphetamine of 7.56ug/100cm² in an 8-sample composite (providing a maximum theoretical level of
5ug/100cm²). Testing of discrete samples identified 26.4ug/100cm² in the kitchen, 11.9ug/100cm² in the lounge, and 8.36ug/100cm² in the bathroom. • Testing on 29 October 2024 identified 1.32ug/100cm² in a 5-sample composite (providing a maximum theoretical level of 6.61ug/100cm²). • Testing of discrete samples on 7 November 2024 identified 21.1ug/100cm² in the kitchen. The second highest reading was 4.23ug/100cm² in the hallway. The lounge was 1.26ug/100cm² and the bathroom
85ug/100cm².
The landlord served a notice to remedy on 10 October 2024 relating to unlawful use of the premises. Relevant Law
Section 40(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) requires that the tenant must not use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.
It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to manufacture or use any controlled drug, or to knowingly permit any premises to be used for the purpose of consuming controlled drugs (sections 6, 7 and 12).
It follows that methamphetamine use or manufacture at residential premises is a breach of the Act.
The tenant is responsible for the actions of her visitors (section 41 of the Act).
Pursuant to section 56 of the Act, the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach is of such a nature or such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make a termination order. The Tribunal considers factors such as whether the breach was deliberate, involves immoral or illegal use, and whether there is lasting damage to the landlord. Analysis
The tenant explained that she allowed a family to stay with her who were waiting for accommodation from the landlord, a social housing provider. The tenant said she was not aware of any drug use, but the implication was that the guests were responsible. The premises comprise a 1-bedroom unit, so it would seem difficult to use drugs without it being noticed at some point.
The landlord provided screenshots from security cameras taken on or about 28 September 2024 said to show the people staying with the tenant exiting her apartment and covering the cameras. There was a fire in the block on that day. On 11 October 2024 one of the visitors was arrested for breaking into another unit. It appears that the tenant allowed guests to stay who had nefarious inclinations.
In my view, the methamphetamine testing produced inconsistent results. It is difficult to understand why there was a maximum theoretical level of
5ug/100cm² on 7 October 2024 and yet this had declined to 6.61ug/100cm² on 29 October 2024. The discrete testing on 7 October 2024 and 7 November 2024 produced similarly high results in the kitchen, but quite different levels of contamination in other rooms. This does give me pause for thought as to how contaminated the premises were.
The Tribunal was not provided with any technical or scientific basis to challenge or disregard the testing results. It is not possible to treat them as wholly unreliable, although the 29 October 2024 result is anomalous. The results are consistent with the use of methamphetamine in the premises around the time that the tenant was hosting visitors. I find on the balance of probabilities that the premises were used for unlawful purposes during the tenancy.
The breach is serious if the contamination levels are correct, because contamination at or above 15ug/100cm² is considered potentially hazardous to human health (see the report of Professor Gluckman, formerly the government’s chief science advisor, dated 29 May 2018). The landlord says they will have to remediate all areas contaminated above 1.5ug/cm² at a cost of approximately $10,000.00 (no quotes were provided to support this amount). The breach therefore involves potential risk to human health, illegal activity, and ongoing cost to the landlord.
Balanced against this is the tenant’s relative lack of blame (if it is accepted that she did not know what was happening) her desire to help others and a level of uncertainty about the accuracy of the testing results. There seems to have been a long gap between the first screening test and the start of the tenancy, although the testing in 2023 identified contamination at still low but increasing levels. I am satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The premises have been used for an illegal purpose, appear to have been damaged by high levels of contamination over some months, and the landlord will need to decontaminate.
As discussed and agreed at the hearing, the tenancy is terminated from midnight on 31 January 2025. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
The Tribunal heard from social workers about the support being provided to the tenant in various areas of her life. It would be unfortunate if difficulties finding accommodation were to derail that work.
While there is some public interest in knowing about the use of social housing, the landlord has indicated that decontamination will take place to a high standard. I consider the interests of the parties outweigh the public interest. I have decided to suppress the names and details of both parties.
The landlord is awarded the filing fee.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5pm on Friday 31 January 2025.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $27.00 for the filing fee immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 5 November and 19 December 2024.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for unlawful use of the premises.
The following methamphetamine testing was performed at the premises: • A screening test on 23 March 2021 did not detect any contamination based on a 5-sample composite. The landlord said the tenant was the first to live in the premises, which were part of a block of new apartments. The tenancy started on 27 April 2022. • Testing on 5 October 2023 identified 0.61ug/100cm² in a 5-sample composite (providing a maximum theoretical level of 3.03ug/100cm²). • Testing on 10 November 2023 identified 0.95ug/100cm² in a 6-sample composite (providing a maximum theoretical level of 5.67ug/100cm²). • Testing on 9 September 2024 identified 3.33ug/100cm² in a 4-sample composite (providing a maximum theoretical level of 13.3ug/100cm²). • Testing on 7 October 2024 identified methamphetamine of 7.56ug/100cm² in an 8-sample composite (providing a maximum theoretical level of
5ug/100cm²). Testing of discrete samples identified 26.4ug/100cm² in the kitchen, 11.9ug/100cm² in the lounge, and 8.36ug/100cm² in the bathroom. • Testing on 29 October 2024 identified 1.32ug/100cm² in a 5-sample composite (providing a maximum theoretical level of 6.61ug/100cm²). • Testing of discrete samples on 7 November 2024 identified 21.1ug/100cm² in the kitchen. The second highest reading was 4.23ug/100cm² in the hallway. The lounge was 1.26ug/100cm² and the bathroom
85ug/100cm².
The landlord served a notice to remedy on 10 October 2024 relating to unlawful use of the premises. Relevant Law
Section 40(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) requires that the tenant must not use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.
It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to manufacture or use any controlled drug, or to knowingly permit any premises to be used for the purpose of consuming controlled drugs (sections 6, 7 and 12).
It follows that methamphetamine use or manufacture at residential premises is a breach of the Act.
The tenant is responsible for the actions of her visitors (section 41 of the Act).
Pursuant to section 56 of the Act, the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach is of such a nature or such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make a termination order. The Tribunal considers factors such as whether the breach was deliberate, involves immoral or illegal use, and whether there is lasting damage to the landlord. Analysis
The tenant explained that she allowed a family to stay with her who were waiting for accommodation from the landlord, a social housing provider. The tenant said she was not aware of any drug use, but the implication was that the guests were responsible. The premises comprise a 1-bedroom unit, so it would seem difficult to use drugs without it being noticed at some point.
The landlord provided screenshots from security cameras taken on or about 28 September 2024 said to show the people staying with the tenant exiting her apartment and covering the cameras. There was a fire in the block on that day. On 11 October 2024 one of the visitors was arrested for breaking into another unit. It appears that the tenant allowed guests to stay who had nefarious inclinations.
In my view, the methamphetamine testing produced inconsistent results. It is difficult to understand why there was a maximum theoretical level of
5ug/100cm² on 7 October 2024 and yet this had declined to 6.61ug/100cm² on 29 October 2024. The discrete testing on 7 October 2024 and 7 November 2024 produced similarly high results in the kitchen, but quite different levels of contamination in other rooms. This does give me pause for thought as to how contaminated the premises were.
The Tribunal was not provided with any technical or scientific basis to challenge or disregard the testing results. It is not possible to treat them as wholly unreliable, although the 29 October 2024 result is anomalous. The results are consistent with the use of methamphetamine in the premises around the time that the tenant was hosting visitors. I find on the balance of probabilities that the premises were used for unlawful purposes during the tenancy.
The breach is serious if the contamination levels are correct, because contamination at or above 15ug/100cm² is considered potentially hazardous to human health (see the report of Professor Gluckman, formerly the government’s chief science advisor, dated 29 May 2018). The landlord says they will have to remediate all areas contaminated above 1.5ug/cm² at a cost of approximately $10,000.00 (no quotes were provided to support this amount). The breach therefore involves potential risk to human health, illegal activity, and ongoing cost to the landlord.
Balanced against this is the tenant’s relative lack of blame (if it is accepted that she did not know what was happening) her desire to help others and a level of uncertainty about the accuracy of the testing results. There seems to have been a long gap between the first screening test and the start of the tenancy, although the testing in 2023 identified contamination at still low but increasing levels. I am satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The premises have been used for an illegal purpose, appear to have been damaged by high levels of contamination over some months, and the landlord will need to decontaminate.
As discussed and agreed at the hearing, the tenancy is terminated from midnight on 31 January 2025. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
The Tribunal heard from social workers about the support being provided to the tenant in various areas of her life. It would be unfortunate if difficulties finding accommodation were to derail that work.
While there is some public interest in knowing about the use of social housing, the landlord has indicated that decontamination will take place to a high standard. I consider the interests of the parties outweigh the public interest. I have decided to suppress the names and details of both parties.
The landlord is awarded the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5042750 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5042750 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions