In this Tenancy Tribunal Order, two contrasting District Court cases collide as low level meth use is analysed at a rental property. This case, and others like it, have massive ramifications for the property management industry. So, why is it so significant?
Case Background:
Ingoing composite test showed meth levels of 0.30mcg/100 cm2. Over two years later, test results showed potential maximum result of 4.86mcg/100cm2. The tenants said that neither of them consumes meth and both were in jobs with regular drug testing. They had up to 20 difference guests stay at the property over the tenancy. The Landlord applied for termination for breach of Section 40 (2) (b).
Legal Authorities:
Section 40 (2) (b) RTA: Tenant or guests shall not use the premises for any unlawful purpose. Exemplary damages of $1800 can be applied for. The use or possession of meth is an imprisonable offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
Section 41 RTA: Tenants are responsible for any breach done by themselves or any guests.
Section 56 RTA: Landlord can apply for termination for a breach which can or can’t be remedied. The Tribunal may terminate for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.
Case Law:
Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC: Backed the Gluckman report and stated that a rental property is habitable and not a risk to human health if levels are below 15cg/100cm2 or there is no evidence of manufacture.
Clarke v Housing New Zealand [2008] NZDC: Held that a breach of a negative covenant is not capable of remedy.
Terangi v Housing New Zealand Corporation [2010] NZDC: Held that it is not always so that a breach of a negative covenant is incapable of remedy.
Analysis:
In this case, the Tribunal decided that a breach of this nature was capable of remedy by relying of the legal precedent of Terangi v Housing New Zealand Corporation [2010] NZDC.
So, what did this mean? And what was the outcome?
