What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5392121 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at 5 Preston Drive, Katikati, Katikati 3129 is

How much money was awarded in case 5392121?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5392121?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5392121?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12845298-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5392121 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at 5 Preston Drive, Katikati, Katikati 3129 is

How much money was awarded in case 5392121?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5392121?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5392121?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12845298-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Preston Drive, Katikati, Katikati 3129 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5392121 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at 5 Preston Drive, Katikati, Katikati 3129 is terminated and possession is granted to Eves Realty Limited at 12pm on Friday, 12 December 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Tenant appeared by phone.
The Landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the Tenant’s obligations.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
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 tenant has breached their obligations by using, or permitting the use of, methamphetamine at the premises.
First, I note that the Landlord has served three (recidivist) rent breach notices on the Tenant within a 90-day period, and the tenancy would be subject to termination under s 55(1)(aa) of the Act.
Second, the Landlord has served anti-social behaviour notices on the Tenant – 3 within a 90-day period – and the tenancy would be subject to termination under s 55A of the Act also.
On 7 November 2025, the Landlord notified the Tenant of a breach of its obligations under s 40(2)(b) of the Act; namely, the Landlord confirmed through recognised testing methods that methamphetamine contamination had occurred during the tenancy. The Landlord has provided a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test which confirms no contamination at the premises.
The Landlord undertook a second methamphetamine test, and this confirmed the presence of methamphetamine contamination and at higher readings.
The Tenant suggests the methamphetamine contamination could have occurred between July and October, that is, between the date of the pre-tenancy test, and the Tenant’s move in date.
The property managers assumed management of the tenancy sometime after July but before October 2025. The owner provided them with the pre-tenancy inspection reports. The owner is said to have purchased the home from an elderly owner-occupier who had passed away a year earlier, leaving the property vacant for approximately a year prior to the sale.
The Tenant says he does not use methamphetamine, and neither does his identical twin brother, who lives with him at the premises. The Tenant also claimed he has no relevant criminal record. He has a recent drink-driving offence, for which he has lost his license and relies on friends and associates for transport.
I spoke with an elderly neighbour who mentioned a number of disturbances at the premises; loud arguments most days and frequent visitors. She claims to have seen the tenant punch a woman, and slam a door on her head, and kick a young child, in an angry and uncontrolled exchange. She described a short gentleman with light hair who she has seen at the premises more often than any other. She confirmed Police have visited the premises and Police told her that thieves reside there.
The Tenant confirmed the Police had been interested in an individual – in connection with a burglary – who had visited the premises and left his car outside with the Tenant’s agreement. The Tenant says no one else has stayed at the property, aside from his brother, his daughter, and his son. There are four bedrooms, if you include the office with a mattress, he says. There is no evidence of anyone else living at the premises. The Tenant suggested I should call the local Police.
Overall, I found the neighbour’s evidence to be unreliable.
Stepping back, I am not convinced there is sufficient evidence linking the Tenant to methamphetamine use. However, the Tenant has not disproved liability for methamphetamine use at the premises during the tenancy, in the face of test results which are backed by reliable science.
I am not convinced the tenancy was contaminated between July and October, as the levels of contamination are increasing between tests conducted during the tenancy, and the higher levels of contamination reflected in the composite testing undertaken, do not reflect one-off consumption by contractors undertaking work at the property. There is no evidence in support of the Tenant’s suggestion that contractors entered the premises to do work before the Tenant took possession.
I do not need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that contamination occurred during the tenancy, just persuaded on balance. In reliance on the testing conducted by the Landlord I am satisfied that, more likely than now, methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy, and the Tenant is responsible.
I consider the Tenant has breached their obligations. The breach cannot be remedied. The breach is serious and justifies termination of the tenancy pursuant to s 56 of the Act.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at 5 Preston Drive, Katikati, Katikati 3129 is terminated and possession is granted to Eves Realty Limited at 12pm on Friday, 12 December 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Tenant appeared by phone.
The Landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the Tenant’s obligations.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
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 tenant has breached their obligations by using, or permitting the use of, methamphetamine at the premises.
First, I note that the Landlord has served three (recidivist) rent breach notices on the Tenant within a 90-day period, and the tenancy would be subject to termination under s 55(1)(aa) of the Act.
Second, the Landlord has served anti-social behaviour notices on the Tenant – 3 within a 90-day period – and the tenancy would be subject to termination under s 55A of the Act also.
On 7 November 2025, the Landlord notified the Tenant of a breach of its obligations under s 40(2)(b) of the Act; namely, the Landlord confirmed through recognised testing methods that methamphetamine contamination had occurred during the tenancy. The Landlord has provided a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test which confirms no contamination at the premises.
The Landlord undertook a second methamphetamine test, and this confirmed the presence of methamphetamine contamination and at higher readings.
The Tenant suggests the methamphetamine contamination could have occurred between July and October, that is, between the date of the pre-tenancy test, and the Tenant’s move in date.
The property managers assumed management of the tenancy sometime after July but before October 2025. The owner provided them with the pre-tenancy inspection reports. The owner is said to have purchased the home from an elderly owner-occupier who had passed away a year earlier, leaving the property vacant for approximately a year prior to the sale.
The Tenant says he does not use methamphetamine, and neither does his identical twin brother, who lives with him at the premises. The Tenant also claimed he has no relevant criminal record. He has a recent drink-driving offence, for which he has lost his license and relies on friends and associates for transport.
I spoke with an elderly neighbour who mentioned a number of disturbances at the premises; loud arguments most days and frequent visitors. She claims to have seen the tenant punch a woman, and slam a door on her head, and kick a young child, in an angry and uncontrolled exchange. She described a short gentleman with light hair who she has seen at the premises more often than any other. She confirmed Police have visited the premises and Police told her that thieves reside there.
The Tenant confirmed the Police had been interested in an individual – in connection with a burglary – who had visited the premises and left his car outside with the Tenant’s agreement. The Tenant says no one else has stayed at the property, aside from his brother, his daughter, and his son. There are four bedrooms, if you include the office with a mattress, he says. There is no evidence of anyone else living at the premises. The Tenant suggested I should call the local Police.
Overall, I found the neighbour’s evidence to be unreliable.
Stepping back, I am not convinced there is sufficient evidence linking the Tenant to methamphetamine use. However, the Tenant has not disproved liability for methamphetamine use at the premises during the tenancy, in the face of test results which are backed by reliable science.
I am not convinced the tenancy was contaminated between July and October, as the levels of contamination are increasing between tests conducted during the tenancy, and the higher levels of contamination reflected in the composite testing undertaken, do not reflect one-off consumption by contractors undertaking work at the property. There is no evidence in support of the Tenant’s suggestion that contractors entered the premises to do work before the Tenant took possession.
I do not need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that contamination occurred during the tenancy, just persuaded on balance. In reliance on the testing conducted by the Landlord I am satisfied that, more likely than now, methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy, and the Tenant is responsible.
I consider the Tenant has breached their obligations. The breach cannot be remedied. The breach is serious and justifies termination of the tenancy pursuant to s 56 of the Act.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5392121 — 14-day notice at 5 Preston Drive, Katikati, Katikati 3129

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5392121 — 14-day notice at 5 Preston Drive, Katikati, Katikati 3129

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.