What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5056713 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5056713?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5056713?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5056713?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11115147-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5056713 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5056713?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5056713?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5056713?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11115147-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5056713 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5056713 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5056713 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Rachel Edmonds at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 am on Friday 29 November 2024.
Rachel Edmonds must pay [The landlord/s] $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the video hearing on 22 November 2024.
The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. All calls went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. Landlord applications Anti-Social Behaviour
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is intimidating behaviour towards the landlord’s staff conducting inspections.
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice— i. describing clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti-social and (if known to the landlord) who engaged in it; and ii. advising the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; and iii. stating how many other notices (if any) the landlord has given the tenant under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy and the same 90-day period; and iv. advising the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice and; c. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.
The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the landlord as set out above.
I have determined that whilst the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission, the landlord has not served three notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). For that reason the application is dismissed. Termination for breach of tenant obligations
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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) RTA.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord says that the tenant has breached their obligations by consuming or allowing methamphetamine to be consumed on the premises. The consumption of Methamphetamine is a breach of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
The landlord served 14-day notices on the tenant on 25 September 2024 and 14 October 2024. The notices required the tenant to refrain from consuming methamphetamine and to have the area contaminated with methamphetamine cleaned and “brought back under the New Zealand standard of 1.5g/100cm2”.
The 14 day breach notices raise two issues. I propose dealing with the requirement to clean first.
Section 138C RTA provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 for limited use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
The levels of methamphetamine at the premises recorded in the tests conducted do not exceed 15g/100cm2. There is no evidence to consider that manufacture is taking place at the premises. The tenant was not required to remediate any ”contamination” in those circumstances.
The second issue relates to consumption of methamphetamine. It is a breach of the RTA to commit or permit an unlawful act to be carried out on the premises. The consumption of methamphetamine is unlawful.
The landlord carried out methamphetamine testing on the premises prior to the commencement of the tenancy. The tests results were essentially negative for methamphetamine contamination.
Further tests were conducted on 23 September 2024. The results showed relatively minor contamination with results varying from 0.33g/100cm2 in the garage to 2.87g/100cm2 in bedroom 3.
The first breach notice required the tenant not to consume methamphetamine. The notice was served on the tenant and is dated 25 September 2024. It required the tenant to refrain from using or permitting others to consume methamphetamine at the premises through until 13 October 2024.
Further testing was conducted on 10 October 2024. The results showed an increased degree of methamphetamine contamination varying from 0.11 in the kitchen to 4.84 on the bathroom door. The test results show that it is more likely than not that methamphetamine was consumed or permitted to be consumed by the tenant during the breach notice period.
The tenant has not complied with the breach notice. In those circumstances the Tribunal must consider if it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is 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.
The landlord provided a timeline of the history of the tenancy. The landlord is to be commended on the lengths that they have gone to as a social housing provider to assist the tenant. Communication with the tenant has been difficult. The tenant and her associates have been intimidatory in their dealings with the landlord’s staff and have engaged in anti-social behaviour.
The tenant received two breach notice and has failed to curtail the consumption of methamphetamine at the premises.
The increasing levels of methamphetamine disclosed by the test results leave me with the view that it is unlikely that the tenant will comply with their obligations in the future.
The use of or allowing the use of methamphetamine at the premises can only be described as intentional.
The breach is a breach of the Misuse of Drugs Act and a breach of s.40(2)(b) RTA. The Tribunal considers the breaches to be grave and that termination of the tenancy when all of the background is considered is a proportionate response. It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The tenancy is terminated. Termination for assault
Section 55 RTA provides that the Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy where a tenant has assaulted or threatened to assault or has caused or permitted any other person to assault or threaten to assault any agent of the landlord which shall include staff members of the landlord.
The landlord alleges that on two separate occasions the tenant has breached s.55 RTA. An assault includes an act or gesture to apply force to another person. A threat to assault is an expression of intent to do harm to another person by the use of force and does not require an intention or capacity to act on the threat.
The landlord says that during an inspection on 9 October 2024 by the landlord’s staff the tenant said, “ fuck off bro, fuck this, not fucking helping and get the fuck out of my house”. Whilst all of the words used may have been offensive, none of them can be considered a threat to do harm, nor was there any actual assault.
During an inspection on 25 October 2024, the landlord’s staff were verbally abused by both the tenant and her associates. Quite fairly, the landlord’s staff felt intimidated by the behaviour and I have no difficulty in finding that this was intended by the tenant. There was no application of force by the tenant or associates so as to amount to an assault, nor did any of the language alleged to have been used amount to a threat to do harm. The landlord, appropriately in my opinion, served anti-social behaviour notices on the tenant for these incidents. However, as previously mentioned the RTA requires there to be three separate notices within a 90 day period. For the reasons given above, the application for termination under s.55 RTA is dismissed.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5056713 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5056713 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions