What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5319941?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Sabbath Mohi at Unit/Flat 3, 1 Steeles Lane, Western Heights,

How much money was awarded in case 5319941?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5319941?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5319941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12663747-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5319941?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Sabbath Mohi at Unit/Flat 3, 1 Steeles Lane, Western Heights,

How much money was awarded in case 5319941?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5319941?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5319941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12663747-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 1 Steeles Lane, Western Heights, Rotorua 3015 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5319941 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Mr Joseph, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenant did not appear. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.

The tenancy commenced on 27 May 2024 and is periodic.

On 22 August 2025 the landlord filed an application seeking termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. Relevant legal considerations

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.

That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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) of the RTA.

Where the breach is capable of remedy, the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.

The Tribunal therefore needs to consider the three requirements set out in the RTA in order for me to order termination, which are in summary: a. The tenant must have breached some legal obligation to the landlord; 1 and b. If the breach is capable of remedy, the landlord issued a 14-day notice to remedy which the tenant has not complied with; 2 and c. That the breach was of such significance, that it would be inequitable (unfair) not to terminate the tenancy. 3 1 See section 56(1)(a) of the RTA. 2 See section 56(1)(b) of the RTA. 3 See section 56(1)(a) of the RTA.

Has the tenant breached their legal obligations to the landlord?

The landlord says the tenant has breached their obligations by: a. failing to keep the property reasonably clean and tidy; 4 and b. Intentionally or carelessly damaging the premises or permitting any other person to damage the premises; 5 and c. Using the premises, or permitting the premises, to be used for any unlawful purpose. 6 Cleaning and rubbish

There were no pre-tenancy photographs showing the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. However, the landlord did provide a Methamphetamine Screening Assessment Reports with photographs dated 1 July 2024 which showed the property to be clean and tidy and free from rubbish shortly after the commencement of the tenancy.

The landlord also gave oral evidence that the property was provided in a clean and tidy condition, free from rubbish and with no damage.

The landlord told the Tribunal they received an e-mail from the tenant’s support person on 17 July 2025, saying the property had been “trashed”.

On 22 July 2025 the landlord completed a tenancy inspection of the property. The landlord provided the Tribunal with photographs taken during that property inspection which showed: a. Rubbish including an empty alcohol bottle, advertising flyers, electrical cords, containers, fabric and small household appliance strewn about the floor of the lounge. b. There was white powder covering the lounge and kitchen floor. c. Rubbish, utensils, plates and cups were strewn across the kitchen floor.

The landlord told the Tribunal that the white powder was attracting vermin in the form of ants and cockroaches.

The Tribunal finds that the tenant has breached their obligations by failing to keep the property reasonably clean and tidy and free from rubbish. 4 See section 40(1)(c) of the RTA. 5 See section 40(2)(a) of the RTA. 6 See section 40(2)(b) of the RTA. Damage

The photographs taken during the 22 July 2025 property inspection also show: a. The cover for the heat pump had been removed. b. Expletives were written in large writing across multiple walls in the property. c. The curtain rod in the lounge had been broken in half. d. A kitchen cupboard door was broken off and had been left on the kitchen bench. e. The landlord told the Tribunal that there was a dent in the wall of the lounge that was not visible in the photographs and the front door glazing had been smashed.

The landlord told the Tribunal the glazing in the front door had to be repaired to secure the property.

I find that the tenant has breached their obligations by causing or allowing others to cause damage to the premises. Unlawful use

The landlord says the tenant has been using the property for an unlawful purpose by smoking or allowing other parties to smoke methamphetamine in the property.

The landlord provided a methamphetamine screening assessment from Active Testing Solutions relating to samples taken on 1 July 2024 and sent to Analytica Laboratories for analysis. The report confirms that eight samples were provided, combined and tested as a single composite test. The test produced a composite result for a theoretical maximum methamphetamine reading of 1.91μg.

The landlord provided a subsequent methamphetamine screening assessment from Active Testing Solutions relating to samples taken on 5 September 2025 and sent to ALS Food & Environmental NZ for analysis. That report confirms that eight samples were provided, combined and tested as a single composite test. The test produced a composite result for a theoretical maximum methamphetamine reading of 5.59μg.

The reports were completed by the same testing company, but the analysis completed at different laboratories.

For completeness the Tribunal records that the testing reports are composite tests, which the New Zealand standard confirms is simply a screening test. The New Zealand standard emphasises that a composite test is not to be used for analytical purposes. Composite tests can be used to confirm whether methamphetamine is present or not, but that is the extent of that type of testing.

The Tribunal notes that both reports present a theoretical maximum. A theoretical maximum means that if there was a composite test, and the methamphetamine was found in only one of the multiple swabs, that would be the level that would be found on that one swab.

The photographs taken of the sampling sites show that some of the sites swabbed on 5 September 2025 were proximate to the sampling sites swabbed on 1 July 2024. However, the swabs taken from the kitchen, laundry, hallway, bedroom one and bedroom two were taken from different locations in the property and were not proximate to each other.

Having considered all of the evidence the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that tenant has been using the property for an unlawful purpose by smoking or allowing other parties to smoke methamphetamine in the property. The Tribunal was not provided with a pre-tenancy methamphetamine screening assessment proving the level of methamphetamine in the property at the commencement of the tenancy. Further, the two reports the landlord seeks to rely on provided composite theoretical maximum levels from swab sites that were not consistent with each other. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot rule out the possibility that the higher composite results were as a direct result of the change in sampling site.

The claim that the tenant breached their obligations by using or allowing the property to be used for an unlawful purpose is dismissed.

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

Where a breach is established and the breach is capable of remedy, the landlord must give the tenant a notice to remedy. The tenant must be given no less than 14 days to remedy the breach. Cleaning and rubbish

The landlord produced three 14-day breach notices related to cleaning. a. The first notice was issued on 22 July 2025 and expired on 5 August 2025. b. The second notice was issued on 5 August 2025 and expired on 19 August 2025. c. The third notice was issued on 19 August 2025 and expired on 2 September 2025.

Each notice recorded that: “Whole house needs to be tidied up as it is in a mess. The carpets needs to be cleaned as there are some white substance on the carpet. The curtain in the lounge needs to be put back and cleaned”.

The landlord produced three 14-day breach notices related to rubbish. a. The first notice was issued on 22 July 2025 and expired on 5 August 2025. b. The second notice was issued on 5 August 2025 and expired on 19 August 2025. c. The third notice was issued on 19 August 2025 and expired on 2 September 2025.

All of the notices recorded that “all of the rubbish needs to be removed”.

The landlord said that on each occasion they returned to the property to inspect it, the breaches had not been remedied. The landlord said that the property looked the same as in the photographs (provided to the Tribunal) taken on 22 July 2025.

The Tribunal finds that the tenant failed to remedy the breach notices for cleaning and rubbish removal within the required time period. Damage

The landlord produced three 14-day breach notices related to damage. a. The first notice was issued on 22 July 2025 and expired on 5 August 2025. b. The second notice was issued on 5 August 2025 and expired on 19 August 2025. c. The third notice was issued on 19 August 2025 and expired on 2 September 2025.

All of the notices record that: “heat pump damaged, needs to be fixed. Front door glass smashed – (we have already fixed as we need to secure the property), Cupboards in the kitchen is damaged, needs fixing. Writings on the lounge walls needs to be removed”.

The final notice dated 19 August 2025 also records that power at the property was disconnected.

The landlord confirmed that at each subsequent property inspection the damage was not remedied, and the property remained in the same condition as when they discovered the damage on 22 July 2025.

The Tribunal finds that the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required time period. Inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy

In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe), the Court needed to consider the extent of section 56(1)(c), which requires consideration of whether the breach: ...is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.

The Court set out a range of factors that would be relevant in that case, being: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.

Having regard to these factors I note: a. The history for the tenancy: the tenancy commenced on 27 May 2024. The landlord stated that there had been no issue with cleaning, rubbish or damage at the property up until 22 July 2025 when the current issues were identified. However, despite three breach notices there has been no contact from the tenant and no attempts have been made to remedy the breaches. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings: there have been three 14-day breach notices issued in relation to cleaning, rubbish and damage on 22 July 2025, 5 August 2025 and 19 August 2025. c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future: The tenant has failed to remedy the three breach notices and has failed to engage with the landlord over the issues. The Tribunal considers that it is unlikely the tenant will be able to meet their obligations under the tenancy moving forward. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed: Given the lack of engagement the Tribunal considers that the breaches are more likely than not deliberate. The tenant has failed to maintain their property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, free from rubbish, and has caused or allowed others to cause damage. e. Conduct of the landlord: The Tribunal considers that the landlord has conducted themselves appropriately. Multiple breach notices were served which the landlord remedied due to the development of an ant and cockroach infestation. Further, the landlord has applied to the tribunal for determination of this matter. f. The gravity of the breach: Allowing the premises to remain unclean, littered with rubbish and damaged is a breach of the tenant’s obligations. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach: The Tribunal considers that termination is a proportionate response to the breaches. The landlord is a Social Housing Provider, and the premises ought to be available for tenants who will not leave it unclean or cause damage to it.

For those reasons the Tribunal finds that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. Costs

Because Airedale Residential Limited As Agent For Kelly Steele has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name Suppression

The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Reasons