What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5135508 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 5135508?

Sion Is Granted To [The Landlord/S],…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5135508?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5135508?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11407447-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5135508 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 5135508?

Sion Is Granted To [The Landlord/S],…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5135508?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5135508?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11407447-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5135508 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5135508. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
sion is granted to [The landlord/s], at 9am on Monday 10 February 2025. 3. Kararina Matarena Patuaka is to pay [The land	$27.00		sion is granted to [The landlord/s], at 9am on Monday 10 February 2025. 3. Kararina Matarena Patuaka is to pay [The land

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Kararina Matarena Patuaka at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 9am on Monday 10 February 2025.
Kararina Matarena Patuaka is to pay [The landlord/s] $27.00 immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted remotely on 5 February 2025, and the owner of the premises was also present.
The tenant’s request for an adjournment to engage a lawyer and conduct a hair follicle test was declined. Given the nature of the application and the evidence presented, it was reasonable to proceed.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant has used or permitted the smoking of methamphetamine in the premises, in breach of the tenancy agreement, and that the tenant has been keeping a dog at the property despite not being permitted.
The onus is on the landlord to prove the allegations on the balance of probabilities.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
The landlord claimed that the tenant has used the premises unlawfully by using or permitting the smoking of methamphetamine. Section 40(2)(b) RTA prohibits a tenant from using or permitting the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. Additionally, under section 41 RTA, tenants are responsible for the actions of others who are at the premises with their permission. The possession or consumption of methamphetamine is unlawful under section 7(1)(a) and Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
A methamphetamine assessment report completed on 29 August 2024, before the tenancy began, showed no presence of methamphetamine. However, a screening test conducted on 14 January 2025 returned a composite result of 34 μg/100cm2, indicating contamination. A further methamphetamine assessment report showed de-composite readings of individual rooms, with the highest level detected in the lounge. The tenant requested her own report, which the landlord did not oppose, and a second test was conducted on 27 January 2025. The results of this independent test also showed high contamination levels at 23 μg/100cm2.
Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that methamphetamine has been consumed in the premises at some point during the tenancy. I also note that A hair follicle test would not change the fact that methamphetamine use occurred in the premises.
In response, the tenant denied any knowledge of the contamination, stating that she was unaware of how or when it occurred. She expressed surprise at the test results and mentioned that, while she had never observed methamphetamine use herself, she had been in an on-and-off relationship with someone who used methamphetamine. She acknowledged that he often stayed up late in the lounge while she was asleep but could not confirm whether he had used methamphetamine in the premises.
Despite the tenant’s claim of ignorance and the potential involvement of others, under section 41 of the RTA the tenant is responsible for the actions of those permitted on the property. Even if the tenant did not personally use methamphetamine, she must have allowed others to do so. She has not provided any contrary evidence to refute this conclusion.
The use of methamphetamine in the premises constitutes the use of the premises for an unlawful purpose, breaching section 40(2)(b) RTA. The tenant has therefore breached her obligations under this provision by permitting the unlawful consumption of methamphetamine. This breach is not capable of remedy, as the contamination has already occurred, and its effects cannot be undone without remediation.
Given the severity of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The consequences for the landlord are significant, as they now face substantial remediation costs and loss of rental income while these are undertaken. Considering the serious nature of the breach and its impact, termination of the tenancy is justified.
As the tenancy is to be terminated on this basis, it is unnecessary to consider the second ground relied on by the landlord regarding the tenant keeping a dog on the premises.
The landlord gave consideration to the tenant’s personal circumstances. To allow time for the tenant to remove her possessions, termination is deferred, and possession is granted to the landlord at 9:00 AM on Monday, 10 February 2025.
As the landlord has been wholly successful in the application, I order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee. Additionally, suppression of the landlord’s name is granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5135508. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
sion is granted to [The landlord/s], at 9am on Monday 10 February 2025. 3. Kararina Matarena Patuaka is to pay [The land	$27.00		sion is granted to [The landlord/s], at 9am on Monday 10 February 2025. 3. Kararina Matarena Patuaka is to pay [The land

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Kararina Matarena Patuaka at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 9am on Monday 10 February 2025.
Kararina Matarena Patuaka is to pay [The landlord/s] $27.00 immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted remotely on 5 February 2025, and the owner of the premises was also present.
The tenant’s request for an adjournment to engage a lawyer and conduct a hair follicle test was declined. Given the nature of the application and the evidence presented, it was reasonable to proceed.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant has used or permitted the smoking of methamphetamine in the premises, in breach of the tenancy agreement, and that the tenant has been keeping a dog at the property despite not being permitted.
The onus is on the landlord to prove the allegations on the balance of probabilities.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
The landlord claimed that the tenant has used the premises unlawfully by using or permitting the smoking of methamphetamine. Section 40(2)(b) RTA prohibits a tenant from using or permitting the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. Additionally, under section 41 RTA, tenants are responsible for the actions of others who are at the premises with their permission. The possession or consumption of methamphetamine is unlawful under section 7(1)(a) and Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
A methamphetamine assessment report completed on 29 August 2024, before the tenancy began, showed no presence of methamphetamine. However, a screening test conducted on 14 January 2025 returned a composite result of 34 μg/100cm2, indicating contamination. A further methamphetamine assessment report showed de-composite readings of individual rooms, with the highest level detected in the lounge. The tenant requested her own report, which the landlord did not oppose, and a second test was conducted on 27 January 2025. The results of this independent test also showed high contamination levels at 23 μg/100cm2.
Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that methamphetamine has been consumed in the premises at some point during the tenancy. I also note that A hair follicle test would not change the fact that methamphetamine use occurred in the premises.
In response, the tenant denied any knowledge of the contamination, stating that she was unaware of how or when it occurred. She expressed surprise at the test results and mentioned that, while she had never observed methamphetamine use herself, she had been in an on-and-off relationship with someone who used methamphetamine. She acknowledged that he often stayed up late in the lounge while she was asleep but could not confirm whether he had used methamphetamine in the premises.
Despite the tenant’s claim of ignorance and the potential involvement of others, under section 41 of the RTA the tenant is responsible for the actions of those permitted on the property. Even if the tenant did not personally use methamphetamine, she must have allowed others to do so. She has not provided any contrary evidence to refute this conclusion.
The use of methamphetamine in the premises constitutes the use of the premises for an unlawful purpose, breaching section 40(2)(b) RTA. The tenant has therefore breached her obligations under this provision by permitting the unlawful consumption of methamphetamine. This breach is not capable of remedy, as the contamination has already occurred, and its effects cannot be undone without remediation.
Given the severity of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The consequences for the landlord are significant, as they now face substantial remediation costs and loss of rental income while these are undertaken. Considering the serious nature of the breach and its impact, termination of the tenancy is justified.
As the tenancy is to be terminated on this basis, it is unnecessary to consider the second ground relied on by the landlord regarding the tenant keeping a dog on the premises.
The landlord gave consideration to the tenant’s personal circumstances. To allow time for the tenant to remove her possessions, termination is deferred, and possession is granted to the landlord at 9:00 AM on Monday, 10 February 2025.
As the landlord has been wholly successful in the application, I order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee. Additionally, suppression of the landlord’s name is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5135508 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5135508 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions