What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5187011 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5187011?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5187011?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5187011?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11584067-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5187011 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5187011?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5187011?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5187011?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11584067-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

14 Lodge Road, Maraenui, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5187011 — Cleanliness

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities is granted possession of the premises at 14 Lodge Road, Maraenui, Napier 4110 at 11.59 pm on Monday 31 March 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone with Ms Eder representing the landlord.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.
The landlord has terminated the premises under section 53B(1)(b)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) which provides that a landlord under a periodic tenancy may terminate the tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice if the social housing provider (Kainga Ora) requires the tenant to transfer to different social housing provided by that provider, and the provider considers that: the transfer is necessary or desirable for any reason; and the other housing is appropriate for the tenant’s housing needs as most recently assessed (regardless of when that assessment took place).
The termination notice under section 53B served on the tenant was dated 18 September 2024 and terminated the tenancy with effect on 19 December 2024 (“the termination notice”).
The landlord explained that they deemed the transfer necessary because testing of the premises on 20 May 2024 established that the property is contaminated with methamphetamine, and they need to decontaminate and remediate the property which cannot be done while the tenant is in occupation. The works could take some time and the landlord considers that it is not feasible to temporarily relocate the tenant until the works are completed nor to hold the property for the tenant until the works are completed.
The landlord understands that the contamination was not caused by the tenant but by the tenant’s new partner at the time who was staying at the property in May 2024. In that regard, a Police raid at the property on 1 May 2024 resulted in this person being charged with an offence relating to possession of methamphetamine.
The tenant is opposed to a transfer and made the following submissions: a. She understood from discussions with the landlord in February 2024 that because she had settled arrears owed at that date and spent money cleaning up the premises after a breach notice was served, she would be able to stay permanently at the premises; b. She believes her partner did not smoke or manufacture methamphetamine in the premises and that the testing completed by the landlord was “bogus”; c. She claims her case manager had an unfavourable opinion about her partner suggesting that this motivated the landlord’s actions; d. A 7-day notice to terminate the tenancy was served on her on 1 May 2024; e. That some of the various notices (including the termination notice) from the landlord quote the incorrect customer reference number for her so the notices are not valid; f. A transfer will cause her and her daughter (also residing at the premises) a huge amount of stress and it will be unsettling to move away from a familiar environment including neighbours they know; g. The alternative property which the landlord advised was available in today’s hearing is a new option she has only been made aware of today. She is concerned that it is not a freestanding house like her current house.
Ms Eder explained that the 7-day notice which the tenant referred to was dated 31 May 2024 and was retracted because the landlord was concerned to find an alternative property for the tenant. She also explained that while some notices may have an incorrect customer reference number they are all correctly addressed to the tenant at the tenancy address.
Ms Eder also explained that because the tenant has turned down the offer of previous properties, the landlord cannot hold on to them for her and have made them available to other social housing tenants as required. Ms Eder confirmed that the property mentioned in the hearing today is a new property on offer and Kainga Ora assess that it is suitable for the tenant’s needs.
Ms Eder sent through a copy of the methamphetamine testing results and report for the premises. I am satisfied that there is no evidence that this report is “bogus” as suggested by the tenant. Furthermore, the landlord has an obligation to address the contamination and remediate the property regardless of who might be to blame for the contamination.
The Tribunal accepts that a transfer will of course cause stress and upheaval for the tenant. However, the Tribunal cannot take those factors into account when deciding whether to grant a possession order. Equally, the fact that this has been the tenant’s home for many years and there was an expectation that she would continue living there, the landlord is under no obligation and cannot guarantee that the tenant may live there permanently. If the Tribunal considers that a valid termination notice has been served and the requirements of s53B met, then it must grant possession.
Furthermore, the Tribunal cannot look behind Kainga Ora’s reasons for transferring the tenant and substitute its own opinion (if different) for the landlord’s opinion. Section 53B makes clear that the decision to transfer the tenant and the reasons for it must be assessed by the social housing provider, Kainga Ora. If they consider the transfer is necessary or desirable for any reason, and they consider that the other housing is appropriate, then they may give the termination notice.
It follows that I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord has established grounds for issuing a termination notice under s53B and the notice served on the tenant is valid and complies with s53B.
The tenancy ended on 19 December 2024 which is less than 90 days before the application for a possession order was lodged. The requirements of section 64(1) RTA are satisfied.
The landlord has agreed to give the tenant some further time before possession of the premises is granted. Therefore the possession order takes effect on 31 March 2025 at 11.59pm.
I record for the tenant’s benefit that the landlord has also confirmed that it will cover all reasonable costs related to the move. This includes furniture moving costs, disconnection and reconnection charges for gas, power, telephone, and internet.
I have determined that it is not in the Public interest to disclose the name and identifying details of the tenant because there is no proof that she is responsible for the contamination and references to that in this decision may be unfairly prejudicial to the tenant. Also, while the tenant has not complied with the termination notice, which has resulted in this application, I find it is likely through a misunderstanding of her rights and obligations. See section 95A RTA.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities is granted possession of the premises at 14 Lodge Road, Maraenui, Napier 4110 at 11.59 pm on Monday 31 March 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone with Ms Eder representing the landlord.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.
The landlord has terminated the premises under section 53B(1)(b)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) which provides that a landlord under a periodic tenancy may terminate the tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice if the social housing provider (Kainga Ora) requires the tenant to transfer to different social housing provided by that provider, and the provider considers that: the transfer is necessary or desirable for any reason; and the other housing is appropriate for the tenant’s housing needs as most recently assessed (regardless of when that assessment took place).
The termination notice under section 53B served on the tenant was dated 18 September 2024 and terminated the tenancy with effect on 19 December 2024 (“the termination notice”).
The landlord explained that they deemed the transfer necessary because testing of the premises on 20 May 2024 established that the property is contaminated with methamphetamine, and they need to decontaminate and remediate the property which cannot be done while the tenant is in occupation. The works could take some time and the landlord considers that it is not feasible to temporarily relocate the tenant until the works are completed nor to hold the property for the tenant until the works are completed.
The landlord understands that the contamination was not caused by the tenant but by the tenant’s new partner at the time who was staying at the property in May 2024. In that regard, a Police raid at the property on 1 May 2024 resulted in this person being charged with an offence relating to possession of methamphetamine.
The tenant is opposed to a transfer and made the following submissions: a. She understood from discussions with the landlord in February 2024 that because she had settled arrears owed at that date and spent money cleaning up the premises after a breach notice was served, she would be able to stay permanently at the premises; b. She believes her partner did not smoke or manufacture methamphetamine in the premises and that the testing completed by the landlord was “bogus”; c. She claims her case manager had an unfavourable opinion about her partner suggesting that this motivated the landlord’s actions; d. A 7-day notice to terminate the tenancy was served on her on 1 May 2024; e. That some of the various notices (including the termination notice) from the landlord quote the incorrect customer reference number for her so the notices are not valid; f. A transfer will cause her and her daughter (also residing at the premises) a huge amount of stress and it will be unsettling to move away from a familiar environment including neighbours they know; g. The alternative property which the landlord advised was available in today’s hearing is a new option she has only been made aware of today. She is concerned that it is not a freestanding house like her current house.
Ms Eder explained that the 7-day notice which the tenant referred to was dated 31 May 2024 and was retracted because the landlord was concerned to find an alternative property for the tenant. She also explained that while some notices may have an incorrect customer reference number they are all correctly addressed to the tenant at the tenancy address.
Ms Eder also explained that because the tenant has turned down the offer of previous properties, the landlord cannot hold on to them for her and have made them available to other social housing tenants as required. Ms Eder confirmed that the property mentioned in the hearing today is a new property on offer and Kainga Ora assess that it is suitable for the tenant’s needs.
Ms Eder sent through a copy of the methamphetamine testing results and report for the premises. I am satisfied that there is no evidence that this report is “bogus” as suggested by the tenant. Furthermore, the landlord has an obligation to address the contamination and remediate the property regardless of who might be to blame for the contamination.
The Tribunal accepts that a transfer will of course cause stress and upheaval for the tenant. However, the Tribunal cannot take those factors into account when deciding whether to grant a possession order. Equally, the fact that this has been the tenant’s home for many years and there was an expectation that she would continue living there, the landlord is under no obligation and cannot guarantee that the tenant may live there permanently. If the Tribunal considers that a valid termination notice has been served and the requirements of s53B met, then it must grant possession.
Furthermore, the Tribunal cannot look behind Kainga Ora’s reasons for transferring the tenant and substitute its own opinion (if different) for the landlord’s opinion. Section 53B makes clear that the decision to transfer the tenant and the reasons for it must be assessed by the social housing provider, Kainga Ora. If they consider the transfer is necessary or desirable for any reason, and they consider that the other housing is appropriate, then they may give the termination notice.
It follows that I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord has established grounds for issuing a termination notice under s53B and the notice served on the tenant is valid and complies with s53B.
The tenancy ended on 19 December 2024 which is less than 90 days before the application for a possession order was lodged. The requirements of section 64(1) RTA are satisfied.
The landlord has agreed to give the tenant some further time before possession of the premises is granted. Therefore the possession order takes effect on 31 March 2025 at 11.59pm.
I record for the tenant’s benefit that the landlord has also confirmed that it will cover all reasonable costs related to the move. This includes furniture moving costs, disconnection and reconnection charges for gas, power, telephone, and internet.
I have determined that it is not in the Public interest to disclose the name and identifying details of the tenant because there is no proof that she is responsible for the contamination and references to that in this decision may be unfairly prejudicial to the tenant. Also, while the tenant has not complied with the termination notice, which has resulted in this application, I find it is likely through a misunderstanding of her rights and obligations. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5187011 — Cleanliness at 14 Lodge Road, Maraenui, Napier 4110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5187011 — Cleanliness at 14 Lodge Road, Maraenui, Napier 4110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions