What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5570804 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] landlord/s] And Company Limited As Agent For Carol Brodie is granted

How much money was awarded in case 5570804?

Filing Fee: $29.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5570804?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5570804?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14186841-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5570804 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] landlord/s] And Company Limited As Agent For Carol Brodie is granted

How much money was awarded in case 5570804?

Filing Fee: $29.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5570804?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5570804?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14186841-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

94B Balmoral Drive, Appleby, Invercargill 9812 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5570804 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5570804 — net $29.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$29.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$29.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$29.00

Order

[The tenant/s] landlord/s] And Company Limited As Agent For Carol Brodie is granted possession of the premises at 94B Balmoral Drive, Appleby, Invercargill 9812 immediately.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] And Company Limited As Agent For Carol Brodie $29.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 9 September 2026.
The tenancy commenced on 11 October 2024 and is current.
On 24 August 2026, the landlord issued a notice to terminate the tenancy under s.59B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) (“the termination notice”).
By order dated 2 September 2026, the Tribunal ordered that the termination notice be stayed pending determination of the tenant’s application to the Tribunal.
The tenant applied to the Tribunal on 26 August 2026, seeking orders that the landlord had attempted to terminate the tenancy without grounds (s.60AA RTA) and for a declaration that the termination notice was invalid.
The landlord filed a cross application with Tenancy Services on 7 September 2026, seeking orders for possession of the premises, rent arrears, reimbursement of the filing fee and release of the bond. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply, this means the landlord must establish, with evidence, that their claim is more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, as is the case here, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence befitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the applicant, in this case the landlord, to provide the necessary evidence to support their claim. If they fail to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not. Possession.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.
The landlord relies on a notice to terminate the tenancy under s.59B RTA. That section provides that; (1) This section applies if testing in accordance with a relevant prescribed method establishes contamination by a contaminant, in any part of the premises, at a level that is above a relevant maximum inhabitable level prescribed for that contaminant. (2) If the contamination has occurred as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement (whether for a fixed term tenancy or a periodic tenancy) - (a) The whole of the premises is treated as uninhabitable; and (b) if the tenant is not in breach, the rent abates; and (c)The party who is not in breach may give notice to the other party terminating the tenancy. (3) If the contamination has occurred otherwise then as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement (whether for a fixed term tenancy or a periodic tenancy), then, unless subsection (4) applies,- (a) the whole of the premises is treated as uninhabitable; and (b) the rent abates; and (c) either party may give notice to the other terminating the tenancy. (4) However, for the purposes of subsection (3), if the only part of the premises that is established to be contaminated above the maximum inhabitable level is a remote and inconsequential part of the premises (see subsection (8),- (a) The rent abates accordingly; and (b) either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy. (5) On an application under subsection (4)(b), the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to decontaminate the premises or (as the case may require) to require the tenant to continue with the tenancy albeit at a reduced rent (6) Where a landlord gives notice of termination under this section, the period of notice is not less than 7 days. (7) Where a tenant gives notice of termination under this section the period of notice is not less than two days. (8) In this section, a part of the premises is remote and inconsequential if- (a) it is physically located away from, or physically closed off to, the rest of the premises in a way that is likely to prevent the spread of the contaminant to the rest of the premises (or is capable of being, and, after contamination is established, is, physically removed from or physically closed off to the rest of the premises in a way that is likely to prevent that spread); and (b) the rest of the premises can reasonably be used, without that part, as residential premises under the tenancy agreement.
The “relevant prescribed level” is set out in the Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026 (“the Regulations”). The Regulations came into force on 16 April 2026. The Regulations provide that the maximum inhabitable level is 30 micrograms per 100cm2. Premises with test results above that level, may engage the tenancy termination provisions contained in s.59B RTA.
Samples were obtained from the premises. Those samples were analysed. The landlord has provided a copy of a certificate of analysis from Hills Laboratories. The amended certificate is dated 28 August 2026. It records the following decomposited individual results (results are shown as micrograms per 100cm2). Kitchen0.02 Bedroom 16.0 Bedroom 213.7 Hallway1.71 Bedroom 32.5 Bathroom36 Living room20 Dining room10.4 Living room (smoke alarm) 111 Hallway13.8
I am satisfied on the evidence provided that it is more likely than not, that testing in accordance with a relevant prescribed method establishes contamination by a contaminant, in the bathroom and living room, at a level that is above a relevant maximum inhabitable level prescribed for that contaminant in the Regulations.
Section 59B(3) RTA provides that if the contamination has occurred other than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant, either party may give notice to the other terminating the tenancy. In those circumstances, the landlord is not required to prove a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant.
Only part of the premises is contaminated above the prescribed level. I do not consider the bathroom and living area, being the areas contaminated above the prescribed level, fall within the definition of a “remote and inconsequential part of the premises” as defined in s.59B(8) RTA.
Where the above prerequisites are proven, the landlord is entitled to give notice terminating the tenancy by giving not less than 7 days’ notice.
The landlord’s notice is dated 24 August 2026. It gives the tenant a final date to vacate the premises of 1 September 2026, that date being no less than 7 days. The notice is valid.
The tenancy ended on 1 September 2026, which is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) RTA are satisfied.
The stay of the termination notice, previously ordered by the Tribunal on an interim basis is removed. Immediate possession of the premises is granted to the landlord.
For the reasons given above, the tenant’s claims are dismissed.
The landlord’s application for rent arrears is dismissed as rent is not in arrears as of the date of the hearing.
As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
Neither party applied for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5570804 — net $29.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$29.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$29.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$29.00

Order

[The tenant/s] landlord/s] And Company Limited As Agent For Carol Brodie is granted possession of the premises at 94B Balmoral Drive, Appleby, Invercargill 9812 immediately.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] And Company Limited As Agent For Carol Brodie $29.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 9 September 2026.
The tenancy commenced on 11 October 2024 and is current.
On 24 August 2026, the landlord issued a notice to terminate the tenancy under s.59B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) (“the termination notice”).
By order dated 2 September 2026, the Tribunal ordered that the termination notice be stayed pending determination of the tenant’s application to the Tribunal.
The tenant applied to the Tribunal on 26 August 2026, seeking orders that the landlord had attempted to terminate the tenancy without grounds (s.60AA RTA) and for a declaration that the termination notice was invalid.
The landlord filed a cross application with Tenancy Services on 7 September 2026, seeking orders for possession of the premises, rent arrears, reimbursement of the filing fee and release of the bond. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply, this means the landlord must establish, with evidence, that their claim is more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, as is the case here, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence befitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the applicant, in this case the landlord, to provide the necessary evidence to support their claim. If they fail to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not. Possession.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.
The landlord relies on a notice to terminate the tenancy under s.59B RTA. That section provides that; (1) This section applies if testing in accordance with a relevant prescribed method establishes contamination by a contaminant, in any part of the premises, at a level that is above a relevant maximum inhabitable level prescribed for that contaminant. (2) If the contamination has occurred as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement (whether for a fixed term tenancy or a periodic tenancy) - (a) The whole of the premises is treated as uninhabitable; and (b) if the tenant is not in breach, the rent abates; and (c)The party who is not in breach may give notice to the other party terminating the tenancy. (3) If the contamination has occurred otherwise then as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement (whether for a fixed term tenancy or a periodic tenancy), then, unless subsection (4) applies,- (a) the whole of the premises is treated as uninhabitable; and (b) the rent abates; and (c) either party may give notice to the other terminating the tenancy. (4) However, for the purposes of subsection (3), if the only part of the premises that is established to be contaminated above the maximum inhabitable level is a remote and inconsequential part of the premises (see subsection (8),- (a) The rent abates accordingly; and (b) either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy. (5) On an application under subsection (4)(b), the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to decontaminate the premises or (as the case may require) to require the tenant to continue with the tenancy albeit at a reduced rent (6) Where a landlord gives notice of termination under this section, the period of notice is not less than 7 days. (7) Where a tenant gives notice of termination under this section the period of notice is not less than two days. (8) In this section, a part of the premises is remote and inconsequential if- (a) it is physically located away from, or physically closed off to, the rest of the premises in a way that is likely to prevent the spread of the contaminant to the rest of the premises (or is capable of being, and, after contamination is established, is, physically removed from or physically closed off to the rest of the premises in a way that is likely to prevent that spread); and (b) the rest of the premises can reasonably be used, without that part, as residential premises under the tenancy agreement.
The “relevant prescribed level” is set out in the Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026 (“the Regulations”). The Regulations came into force on 16 April 2026. The Regulations provide that the maximum inhabitable level is 30 micrograms per 100cm2. Premises with test results above that level, may engage the tenancy termination provisions contained in s.59B RTA.
Samples were obtained from the premises. Those samples were analysed. The landlord has provided a copy of a certificate of analysis from Hills Laboratories. The amended certificate is dated 28 August 2026. It records the following decomposited individual results (results are shown as micrograms per 100cm2). Kitchen0.02 Bedroom 16.0 Bedroom 213.7 Hallway1.71 Bedroom 32.5 Bathroom36 Living room20 Dining room10.4 Living room (smoke alarm) 111 Hallway13.8
I am satisfied on the evidence provided that it is more likely than not, that testing in accordance with a relevant prescribed method establishes contamination by a contaminant, in the bathroom and living room, at a level that is above a relevant maximum inhabitable level prescribed for that contaminant in the Regulations.
Section 59B(3) RTA provides that if the contamination has occurred other than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant, either party may give notice to the other terminating the tenancy. In those circumstances, the landlord is not required to prove a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant.
Only part of the premises is contaminated above the prescribed level. I do not consider the bathroom and living area, being the areas contaminated above the prescribed level, fall within the definition of a “remote and inconsequential part of the premises” as defined in s.59B(8) RTA.
Where the above prerequisites are proven, the landlord is entitled to give notice terminating the tenancy by giving not less than 7 days’ notice.
The landlord’s notice is dated 24 August 2026. It gives the tenant a final date to vacate the premises of 1 September 2026, that date being no less than 7 days. The notice is valid.
The tenancy ended on 1 September 2026, which is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) RTA are satisfied.
The stay of the termination notice, previously ordered by the Tribunal on an interim basis is removed. Immediate possession of the premises is granted to the landlord.
For the reasons given above, the tenant’s claims are dismissed.
The landlord’s application for rent arrears is dismissed as rent is not in arrears as of the date of the hearing.
As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
Neither party applied for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5570804 — Tenancy dispute at 94B Balmoral Drive, Appleby, Invercargill 9812

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5570804 — Tenancy dispute at 94B Balmoral Drive, Appleby, Invercargill 9812

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.