What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5257461?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5257461?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5257461?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5257461?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12117413-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5257461?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5257461?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5257461?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5257461?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12117413-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

31D Frank Street, Koutu, Rotorua 3010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5257461 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing via remote teleconference. There was no attendance by the tenant.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The applicant claims that the tenant has used the premises for an unlawful purpose, namely methamphetamine.

The tenancy began on 29 February 2024. The tenant still resides at the address.

In support of their claim, the landlord provided a methamphetamine testing report from Active Testing Solutions dated 10 April 2025. The landlord also provided a one-page pre-tenancy testing summary from Hills Labs dated 16 January 2024.

The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenant has breached her obligations in this regard.

Airedale Residential Limited claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using methamphetamine. The testing report dated 10 April 2025 confirms testing was carried out by an accredited tester on 8 April 2025. Discrete samples were taken returning an overall reading of 11.1 μg/100cm2 (“ug”).

After hearing from the landlord and considering the other evidence produced, I cannot be satisfied to the required standard that, more likely than not, the tenant has used or allowed others to use the property for an unlawful purpose.

The significant problem for the landlord’s claim is that there is no evidence of any methamphetamine testing carried out at the start of this tenancy. Instead, the pre tenancy testing was carried out approximately 6 weeks prior to the start of the tenancy.

If there had been such testing at the start of the tenancy, on or about 29 February 2024, and it revealed no methamphetamine then clearly the methamphetamine residue that was found during the tenancy could only have occurred during the tenancy and could only have occurred by either the tenant using methamphetamine or permitting others to use methamphetamine inside the house.

The lack of methamphetamine testing immediately prior to the start of the tenancy significantly weakens the circumstantial case against the tenant to the point where it is not possible to conclude on the balance of probabilities that it was the tenant who was responsible for the methamphetamine residue located at the premises during their tenancy.

There was no pre tenancy testing for the presence of methamphetamine at the start of the tenancy but rather some 6 weeks earlier. There is insufficient evidence for me to be satisfied that any contamination discovered occurred during the tenancy.

Accordingly, the landlord’s application is dismissed.

Because the landlord has been unsuccessful I do not reimburse the filing fee.

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.

The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful and therefore is not entitled to name suppression.

There is nothing to warrant a departure from the principle of open justice. I do not make any suppression orders regarding the publication of this decision.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing via remote teleconference. There was no attendance by the tenant.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The applicant claims that the tenant has used the premises for an unlawful purpose, namely methamphetamine.
The tenancy began on 29 February 2024. The tenant still resides at the address.
In support of their claim, the landlord provided a methamphetamine testing report from Active Testing Solutions dated 10 April 2025. The landlord also provided a one-page pre-tenancy testing summary from Hills Labs dated 16 January 2024.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenant has breached her obligations in this regard.
Airedale Residential Limited claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using methamphetamine. The testing report dated 10 April 2025 confirms testing was carried out by an accredited tester on 8 April 2025. Discrete samples were taken returning an overall reading of 11.1 μg/100cm2 (“ug”).
After hearing from the landlord and considering the other evidence produced, I cannot be satisfied to the required standard that, more likely than not, the tenant has used or allowed others to use the property for an unlawful purpose.
The significant problem for the landlord’s claim is that there is no evidence of any methamphetamine testing carried out at the start of this tenancy. Instead, the pre tenancy testing was carried out approximately 6 weeks prior to the start of the tenancy.
If there had been such testing at the start of the tenancy, on or about 29 February 2024, and it revealed no methamphetamine then clearly the methamphetamine residue that was found during the tenancy could only have occurred during the tenancy and could only have occurred by either the tenant using methamphetamine or permitting others to use methamphetamine inside the house.
The lack of methamphetamine testing immediately prior to the start of the tenancy significantly weakens the circumstantial case against the tenant to the point where it is not possible to conclude on the balance of probabilities that it was the tenant who was responsible for the methamphetamine residue located at the premises during their tenancy.
There was no pre tenancy testing for the presence of methamphetamine at the start of the tenancy but rather some 6 weeks earlier. There is insufficient evidence for me to be satisfied that any contamination discovered occurred during the tenancy.
Accordingly, the landlord’s application is dismissed.
Because the landlord has been unsuccessful I do not reimburse the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful and therefore is not entitled to name suppression.
There is nothing to warrant a departure from the principle of open justice. I do not make any suppression orders regarding the publication of this decision.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5257461 — Tenancy dispute at 31D Frank Street, Koutu, Rotorua 3010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5257461 — Tenancy dispute at 31D Frank Street, Koutu, Rotorua 3010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions