Unlawful drug claims eviction
Property manager acted on suspicion alone, tribunal finds
Such a blatant breach cannot be seen as inadvertent.
Tenancy Tribunal decision
Atenant accused of drug use was forced from a swanky Auckland apartment building, despite testing revealing no presence of drugs.
Now the property manager who, according to a Tenancy Tribunal decision, felt pressured by the Metropolis apartments’ body corporate to evict the tenant, has been ordered to pay $2000 in damages.
The tenant was living in the apartments when the landlord — property management firm Nid Renters Limited — issued 28 days’ notice in an email. The firm also indicated they would be filing a claim with the tribunal for commercial cleaning and the costs of methamphetamine testing.
Before the email, the building’s body corporate alleged the tenant breached their rules by consuming illegal drugs in their apartment.
It cited body corporate employees smelling cannabis and said a drug dog “indicated” in the vicinity of the tenant’s apartment.
No direct evidence of this was presented to the tribunal.
The landlord then undertook methamphetamine testing of the apartment, which was negative.
But, according to a recently released tribunal decision, the body corporate wasn’t satisfied with the results and appeared to have pressured the landlord to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant initially resisted the landlord’s letter, but after repeatedly being accused of drug use, finally moved out and the tenancy terminated in June 2023.
The landlord sought costs from the tribunal for commercial cleaning, methamphetamine testing and water rates.
The tribunal dismissed the claim for cleaning and testing costs, finding that the apartment was “reasonably clean and tidy” and “there was insufficient evidence to find the tenant had used the premises for unlawful activity”.
The tenant then sought compensation from the landlord for terminating the tenancy without grounds.
Nid Renters told the tribunal it was in a difficult position because the body corporate didn’t accept the results of the drug testing.
“While I have some sympathy for the landlord, who was caught between the body corporate and the tenant, the fact remains that landlords have obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) to their tenants, and tenancies can only be terminated in accordance with the RTA,” the tribunal said in its decision.
It found the landlord acted unlawfully when it terminated the tenancy and in doing so acted intentionally.
“Such a blatant breach cannot be seen as inadvertent.”
The tribunal awarded the tenant $2000 in exemplary damages.