How a tenancy can go horribly wrong

Sally Lindsay

A landlord falsely accused by her tenant of being a regular cannabis user has failed in a Tenancy Tribunal damages claim for $2,000.

The landlord told the tribunal she has been defamed and traumatised by Anne Louisa Mary Haviland and feels she will not be able to rent the premises again.

Haviland claimed the smell of the drug or drugs the landlord used every day and night permeated her apartment. “I have owned my own medical practice so I know what Cannabus [sic] smells like. This is unacceptable behaviour of a landlord and has impacted on my (sic) greatly,” she told the tribunal.

The allegation arose when Haviland emailed her landlord, wanting to terminate the year-long fixed-term tenancy early because she had found another rental.

Her flat and the landlord’s bottom floor unit each had a separate door off the front-door foyer. During her dispute with the landlord, Haviland had the front door lock changed so nobody else could get into the building.

At the time of the drug allegations, the landlord was in the UK and strenuously denied the tenant’s claims. She obtained a drug test which was negative. She also appointed an agent to look after the property and gave Haviland the details.

On 29 April last year, Haviland emailed the agent saying they had not been to the premises. “So you cannot make statements saying that [the landlord/s] is not dependent on drugs (or do you do drugs as well?) You are an unreliable source of information. Whereas I am the one that has been living here, breathing in her ‘shit’ day and night and her putrid toxic body smell at night when she sleeps. Which is sickening.”

Haviland emailed the agent again on 1 May, saying “it seems you are not able to handle this situation property (sic) and in a straightforward democratic manner. As I have seen in the past, your inability to handle any situation but in (sic) except in an agitated, not wanting to do anything as it should be, and just not by thinking normally, as a drug dependent person does.”

Six days later, Haviland emailed the landlord, saying she would not agree to meet with the agent nor was the agent permitted to come into the premises and that “also there is my health and safety to consider, as the agent has shown to me in writing that she is biased and aggressive towards me.

“If she is as close a fried (sic) to you as what you say, then I can only come to the conclusion that the agent takes drugs as often as yourself. They doe (sic) say that Cannibus [sic] ‘fry’s the brain’. Therefore I will not met (sic) with her at any time and on any basis.”

At the end of May, the agent went to the premises with two police officers, because of concerns about Haviland’s behaviour, to pick up the landlord’s mail but could not get in.

In June, the landlord filed an application with the tribunal claiming among other things $2,000 in general damages on the basis of emotional stress and anxiety due to unsubstantiated claims from the tenant and exemplary damages for the lock change.

Haviland filed a tribunal claim on 1 July, wanting a refund of the bond, a refund of $27,027.64 paid in rent because the flat didn’t have a fire escape and was dangerous, and exemplary damages in relation to drug use by the landlord and because the washing machine was too small.

After complaining about the fire escape to Auckland Council, the tenant was told the premises complied with the Building Act and no further action would be taken.

During the tribunal hearing, Haviland’s only evidence about drug use by the landlord was that she “could smell cannabis”. Tribunal adjudicator R Woodhouse said in his view that was weak evidence. “The tenant has not given evidence of seeing the landlord use cannabis, she has also not presented qualifications which would lead me to conclude the tenant would have sufficient expertise to be able to reliably confirm an odour was cannabis.”

He found the allegations unsubstantiated and said having observed the landlord at two hearings, he accepted she had been severely impacted by the tenant’s actions.

Despite this, Woodhouse said that did not mean the tribunal could order damages for the landlord.

“The tribunal can only make orders which relate to a breach of the tenancy agreement or an order the High Court could make in relation to contracts. In this case there is no term in the tenancy agreement which required mental satisfaction of the contract, so as to be a basis to make any order.”

Haviland failed in all her claims and was ordered to pay the landlord $3,984 for rent arrears, exemplary damages for changing the lock, carpet cleaning and replacing a light fitting. ■