What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5350225 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 8 Korimako Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023 is

How much money was awarded in case 5350225?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5350225?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5350225?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12608235-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5350225 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 8 Korimako Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023 is

How much money was awarded in case 5350225?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5350225?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5350225?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12608235-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Korimako Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5350225 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 8 Korimako Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at
59pm on Thursday 6 November 2025.
[The tenant/s] must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $28 filing fee immediately.

Reasons

The hearing of this application began at 2pm today. Mr Woodbury, who represented the landlord, attended the hearing by telephone due to the severe weather warning affecting Christchurch. The tenant attended in person. She left the hearing room before the hearing was concluded because she was not happy with how the hearing was being conducted.
The landlord applies to terminate the tenancy on two grounds. One being that the tenant has committed a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) that cannot be remedied, namely using or permitting the use of methamphetamine (meth) in the premises. The other being that the tenant has failed to comply with a breach notice to allow the landlord to change back the lock on the door to the premises after the tenant had, unlawfully, changed it.
Previously, the tenant applied for an adjournment because she wanted to obtain legal advice. She was informed that her application would be considered at the hearing. She re-applied for an adjournment at the hearing.
I sought to establish some facts before deciding her application and I asked questions of both parties. The tenant was not happy with that approach because she said it appeared that the Tribunal was proceeding with the landlord’s application. I pointed out that if she was had received legal advice or was legally represented, she would still have to answer the questions. I also note that the tenant would need the Tribunal’s permission to be legally represented.
The tenant said that she received notice of the landlord’s application last Friday 17 October. I note that the notice was served by email to her on Thursday 9 October, two weeks ago. She said that she had contacted Tenancy Services and that they had given her a list of lawyers who could possibly assist her. She had not contacted anyone on that list. She said that she had been too busy with her children. Her children do not live with her.
I asked her whether she had sought advice from Tenancy Services. She said that she hadn’t and that they had not offered her any.
Mr Woodbury said that he sent the tenant the meth test report on 24 September. The report showed that the premises had tested positive for meth above the 15μg/100cm², which the threshold above which the Tribunal concludes that there has been contamination requiring remediation.
There was an exchange of text messages between the parties at that time in which the tenant told the landlord that she was willing to “fix the problem” and that the landlord should not end the tenancy until she had the opportunity to do so.
The tenant has also received two breach notices dated 15 August one to allow the landlord to change back the lock and one to allow the landlord to test for meth. The landlord had previously given notice to test for meth and when they came to do so they found that the lock had been changed.
The tenant said that she had changed the lock because she was concerned for her safety. She was missing a key to the lock, and she was concerned that her ex- partner could have it and could gain entry. I note that the tenant did not do the obvious and correct thing of contacting the landlord for the lock to be changed.
It follows from all this that the tenant has had ample warning that she was heading to the Tribunal, and that she was at risk of losing her tenancy. She could have sought legal advice at any stage of this process, but she did not do so and still has not done so.
I therefore reject her application for an adjournment.
The premises were new at the start of the tenancy, and I find that they were not contaminated by meth when the tenant moved into them.
The meth test was conducted on 4 September. The tenant disputed the date, but the precise date is immaterial. The test found levels of meth in the kitchen/dining area of 19 and 28μg/100cm². Other areas were found to be contaminated below 15μg/100cm². I note that this is not a case involving decontamination and that any level of meth indicates unlawful use of the premises.
The tenant said that her daughter may have used meth in the premises but that she was not aware of it. Given the high levels of contamination, I find that it is unlikely that the tenant was unaware that contamination was occurring. It follows that the tenant has breached the Act by using or permitting use of the premises for an unlawful purpose.
The breach cannot be remedied and so no breach notice is required. It is unlikely that the tenant would have the means to remedy the contamination, and she cannot remedy the breakdown of the landlord/tenant relationship that arises from this kind of breach.
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.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because of a. the seriousness of the breach, using and possessing meth is a serious criminal offence. b. the consequences of the breach. It will be costly to remediate the damage. c. the breakdown of the parties’ relationship as I have referred to.
The tenant has also breached the Act by changing the lock. In these circumstances the only remedy is to allow the landlord to change back the lock.
The breach is capable of remedy and the landlord therefore must serve a notice on the tenant requiring her to remedy the breach, allowing at least 14 days to do so, and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 15 August, and the tenant has not remedied the breach. She claimed that a contractor had come and changed the door handle and that he changed the lock at the same time. Mr Woodbury said that there was no record of that, and if the lock had been changed, he would have a record of it. I accept that.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy for this breach because of the seriousness of the breach – the landlord must have access to the premises in case of emergency and for the tenant’s safety – and the fact that the tenant has refused to allow the landlord access to change back the lock. The tenant has been required to do no more than allow the landlord’s access and her refusal to do so is inexplicable.
For these reasons I have terminated the tenancy.
With the landlord’s consent, I have allowed the tenant 14 days to vacate. Filing Fee
The landlord has succeeded and so I have awarded the filing fee.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 8 Korimako Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at
59pm on Thursday 6 November 2025.
[The tenant/s] must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $28 filing fee immediately.

Reasons

The hearing of this application began at 2pm today. Mr Woodbury, who represented the landlord, attended the hearing by telephone due to the severe weather warning affecting Christchurch. The tenant attended in person. She left the hearing room before the hearing was concluded because she was not happy with how the hearing was being conducted.
The landlord applies to terminate the tenancy on two grounds. One being that the tenant has committed a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) that cannot be remedied, namely using or permitting the use of methamphetamine (meth) in the premises. The other being that the tenant has failed to comply with a breach notice to allow the landlord to change back the lock on the door to the premises after the tenant had, unlawfully, changed it.
Previously, the tenant applied for an adjournment because she wanted to obtain legal advice. She was informed that her application would be considered at the hearing. She re-applied for an adjournment at the hearing.
I sought to establish some facts before deciding her application and I asked questions of both parties. The tenant was not happy with that approach because she said it appeared that the Tribunal was proceeding with the landlord’s application. I pointed out that if she was had received legal advice or was legally represented, she would still have to answer the questions. I also note that the tenant would need the Tribunal’s permission to be legally represented.
The tenant said that she received notice of the landlord’s application last Friday 17 October. I note that the notice was served by email to her on Thursday 9 October, two weeks ago. She said that she had contacted Tenancy Services and that they had given her a list of lawyers who could possibly assist her. She had not contacted anyone on that list. She said that she had been too busy with her children. Her children do not live with her.
I asked her whether she had sought advice from Tenancy Services. She said that she hadn’t and that they had not offered her any.
Mr Woodbury said that he sent the tenant the meth test report on 24 September. The report showed that the premises had tested positive for meth above the 15μg/100cm², which the threshold above which the Tribunal concludes that there has been contamination requiring remediation.
There was an exchange of text messages between the parties at that time in which the tenant told the landlord that she was willing to “fix the problem” and that the landlord should not end the tenancy until she had the opportunity to do so.
The tenant has also received two breach notices dated 15 August one to allow the landlord to change back the lock and one to allow the landlord to test for meth. The landlord had previously given notice to test for meth and when they came to do so they found that the lock had been changed.
The tenant said that she had changed the lock because she was concerned for her safety. She was missing a key to the lock, and she was concerned that her ex- partner could have it and could gain entry. I note that the tenant did not do the obvious and correct thing of contacting the landlord for the lock to be changed.
It follows from all this that the tenant has had ample warning that she was heading to the Tribunal, and that she was at risk of losing her tenancy. She could have sought legal advice at any stage of this process, but she did not do so and still has not done so.
I therefore reject her application for an adjournment.
The premises were new at the start of the tenancy, and I find that they were not contaminated by meth when the tenant moved into them.
The meth test was conducted on 4 September. The tenant disputed the date, but the precise date is immaterial. The test found levels of meth in the kitchen/dining area of 19 and 28μg/100cm². Other areas were found to be contaminated below 15μg/100cm². I note that this is not a case involving decontamination and that any level of meth indicates unlawful use of the premises.
The tenant said that her daughter may have used meth in the premises but that she was not aware of it. Given the high levels of contamination, I find that it is unlikely that the tenant was unaware that contamination was occurring. It follows that the tenant has breached the Act by using or permitting use of the premises for an unlawful purpose.
The breach cannot be remedied and so no breach notice is required. It is unlikely that the tenant would have the means to remedy the contamination, and she cannot remedy the breakdown of the landlord/tenant relationship that arises from this kind of breach.
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.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because of a. the seriousness of the breach, using and possessing meth is a serious criminal offence. b. the consequences of the breach. It will be costly to remediate the damage. c. the breakdown of the parties’ relationship as I have referred to.
The tenant has also breached the Act by changing the lock. In these circumstances the only remedy is to allow the landlord to change back the lock.
The breach is capable of remedy and the landlord therefore must serve a notice on the tenant requiring her to remedy the breach, allowing at least 14 days to do so, and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 15 August, and the tenant has not remedied the breach. She claimed that a contractor had come and changed the door handle and that he changed the lock at the same time. Mr Woodbury said that there was no record of that, and if the lock had been changed, he would have a record of it. I accept that.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy for this breach because of the seriousness of the breach – the landlord must have access to the premises in case of emergency and for the tenant’s safety – and the fact that the tenant has refused to allow the landlord access to change back the lock. The tenant has been required to do no more than allow the landlord’s access and her refusal to do so is inexplicable.
For these reasons I have terminated the tenancy.
With the landlord’s consent, I have allowed the tenant 14 days to vacate. Filing Fee
The landlord has succeeded and so I have awarded the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5350225 — 14-day notice at 8 Korimako Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5350225 — 14-day notice at 8 Korimako Lane, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions