How much money was awarded in case 5167651?

S] Is Terminated, And Possession Is…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5167651?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5167651?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11797764-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5167651?

S] Is Terminated, And Possession Is…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5167651?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5167651?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11797764-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5167651 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5167651 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5167651. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
s] is terminated, and possession is granted to [the landlord], at 11.59pm on Monday 2 June 2025. 3. [The tenant] must pa	$27.00		s] is terminated, and possession is granted to [the landlord], at 11.59pm on Monday 2 June 2025. 3. [The tenant] must pa

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

The tenancy of [the tenant] at [tenancy address] is terminated, and possession is granted to [the landlord], at 11.59pm on Monday 2 June 2025.

[The tenant] must pay [the landlord] $27 filing fee immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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 (the Act).

Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is required by the Act to serve a breach notice on the tenant giving the tenant an opportunity to remedy the breach. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, and its effect, cannot be remedied.

Unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.

The tenant has breached their obligations by using the premises for an unlawful purpose. That is prohibited by s40(2)(b) of the Act.

These premises were new when this tenancy began in May 2021. In November 2024 the landlord received the result of testing for methamphetamine (meth) contamination in the premises. The result was positive at a level below 15μ/100cm².

The tenant denied using meth in the premises or knowing that it was being used. She said that she left the premises for two weeks over fears for her safety and a friend stayed in the premises to look after her two dogs. He later admitted to her that he had used meth while he was there.

I note that this tenancy began in May 2021 and if the tenant was a meth user, it is likely that the level of contamination of the premises would have been significantly higher. Her explanation therefore strikes me as being credible.

But the Act makes the tenant responsible for the actions of people on the premises with the tenant’s permission. That was the case here and therefore the tenant is responsible for the actions of her friend.

The breach is not capable of remedy because of the seriousness of the breach. Possessing and using meth is a serious offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. Because the use of meth in premises can seriously damage the premises, as well as having other undesirable consequences for the landlord and for others in the vicinity of the premises, it is reasonable for the landlord to lose confidence the such misuse of the premises will not be repeated.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy for the reasons just stated. As well, the tenant has two dogs on the premises contrary to the tenancy agreement. The landlord has not served a breach notice on the tenant but if it were to do so, it is likely that the tenancy would be terminated on that ground.

The landlord accepted an order that the tenant gives up possession of the premises in 28 days.

The landlord has succeeded and so the tenant must pay the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5167651. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
s] is terminated, and possession is granted to [the landlord], at 11.59pm on Monday 2 June 2025. 3. [The tenant] must pa	$27.00		s] is terminated, and possession is granted to [the landlord], at 11.59pm on Monday 2 June 2025. 3. [The tenant] must pa

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The tenancy of [the tenant] at [tenancy address] is terminated, and possession is granted to [the landlord], at 11.59pm on Monday 2 June 2025.
[The tenant] must pay [the landlord] $27 filing fee immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
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 (the Act).
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is required by the Act to serve a breach notice on the tenant giving the tenant an opportunity to remedy the breach. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, and its effect, cannot be remedied.
Unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
The tenant has breached their obligations by using the premises for an unlawful purpose. That is prohibited by s40(2)(b) of the Act.
These premises were new when this tenancy began in May 2021. In November 2024 the landlord received the result of testing for methamphetamine (meth) contamination in the premises. The result was positive at a level below 15μ/100cm².
The tenant denied using meth in the premises or knowing that it was being used. She said that she left the premises for two weeks over fears for her safety and a friend stayed in the premises to look after her two dogs. He later admitted to her that he had used meth while he was there.
I note that this tenancy began in May 2021 and if the tenant was a meth user, it is likely that the level of contamination of the premises would have been significantly higher. Her explanation therefore strikes me as being credible.
But the Act makes the tenant responsible for the actions of people on the premises with the tenant’s permission. That was the case here and therefore the tenant is responsible for the actions of her friend.
The breach is not capable of remedy because of the seriousness of the breach. Possessing and using meth is a serious offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. Because the use of meth in premises can seriously damage the premises, as well as having other undesirable consequences for the landlord and for others in the vicinity of the premises, it is reasonable for the landlord to lose confidence the such misuse of the premises will not be repeated.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy for the reasons just stated. As well, the tenant has two dogs on the premises contrary to the tenancy agreement. The landlord has not served a breach notice on the tenant but if it were to do so, it is likely that the tenancy would be terminated on that ground.
The landlord accepted an order that the tenant gives up possession of the premises in 28 days.
The landlord has succeeded and so the tenant must pay the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5167651 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5167651 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions