What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5266119?

The tribunal order states: Irene Scanlon must provide access to unit/flat 5, 17 Segar Avenue, Mount

How much money was awarded in case 5266119?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5266119?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5266119?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12105562-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5266119?

The tribunal order states: Irene Scanlon must provide access to unit/flat 5, 17 Segar Avenue, Mount

How much money was awarded in case 5266119?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5266119?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5266119?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12105562-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 17 Segar Avenue, Mount Albert, Auckland 1025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5266119 — Rent arrears

Order

Irene Scanlon must provide access to unit/flat 5, 17 Segar Avenue, Mount Albert, Auckland 1025, on Wednesday 23 July 2025 at 10.00 am, for Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities to test the premises for contaminants, specifically methamphetamine. This Order serves as notice to the tenant of the intended entry and the reason for it under section 48(2)(ba) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Maturan-Abuid and Mr Temu.
The tenant has agreed to allow entry to the landlord for the purposes of testing as discussed in this order.
A landlord has a right of entry for the purpose of testing for the presence of contaminants or taking samples for such testing, at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it, at least 48 hours but not more than 14 days before the intended entry. The landlord must specify which contaminants are being tested for. See the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) section 48(2)(ba).
The landlord stated that they have twice given the tenant notice to enter the premises for the purposes of testing for methamphetamine, and the tenant has refused entry on both occasions.
The landlord requested a conditional termination if the tenant refuses entry for the purpose of testing for methamphetamine, on the future date.
The landlord stated they were relying on section 78(3) of the RTA which states: “Any order made by the Tribunal may be unconditional or subject to such conditions (whether as to the time for, or mode of, compliance, or otherwise) as the Tribunal thinks fit to impose.”
The landlord provided authority from the Tenancy Tribunal (NZTT 5119728) in which the Adjudicator issued a termination order unless the tenant complied with the order to allow entry to test for methamphetamine contamination.
This is a decision that is persuasive but not binding on me.
I note that the facts of that case include material differences to this case: On that occasion the tenant had already refused to comply with an order from the Tribunal allowing entry to test for methamphetamine. The tenant in this case has not failed to comply with an order allowing entry to test for methamphetamine. The tenant had also not appeared at the hearing, and there was significant information which seemed to indicate unlawful activity at that address. In this case I have not been presented with any concerning circumstances regarding activity at the address, and the tenant has attended and engaged in the hearing in a meaningful way.
The tenant stated that she is willing to allow the landlord access to test for methamphetamine. She stated her previous refusal to allow access was based on her belief that the landlord needed to provide reason to suspect that there was contamination at the premises before they had a right of entry to test, and they hadn’t done so. I advised the tenant her understanding is not factually correct: A landlord may test for contaminants without needing reason to suspect their presence.
The tenant also stated she has had concerns about being evicted from her premises and blamed for contamination if found, when she believes that no baseline test had been undertaken at the beginning of the tenancy.
I am not persuaded that the RTA section 78(3) gives an Adjudicator the power to attach termination of a tenancy, to a breach of any order issued by the Tribunal. There are numerous orders issued by the Tribunal that require a tenant’s conduct to come into line with the RTA or with the terms of a tenancy agreement, where it would be unjust to attach termination as a consequence of failure to comply with the order.
Termination is the most serious consequence to a tenant and the RTA sets out the situations when it can be used. These include termination by notice under section 51 of the RTA, and failing to comply with a 14-day notice to remedy a breach, under section 56 of the RTA. In all these circumstances the determination to terminate the tenacncy is ultimately made by the Tribunal.
The only conditional termination written into the RTA, is for failing to comply with an order to pay rent arrears. See RTA section 55(1A). This is a situation where compliance or non-compliance is relatively black and white. The application usually involves a situation where termination must be ordered for rent arrears, but because both parties agree (and the Tribunal also agrees) that the tenant will be able to pay off the arrears without further breaches, a conditional termination is granted. Refer to RTA section 55(1A)(a) and (b). The relative clarity of the factors involved in that situation are different to this application.
If threat of termination is to be use as a consequence of failing to comply with an order issued by the Tribunal, and the assessment of whether the order has been complied with or not is to be vested to the landlord, then I consider it should only be for the most serious cases and uncontentious cases. The above- mentioned case of NZTT 5119728 may have been that sort of case: The tenants appeared to be involved in an unlawful activity, the tenant was not engaging with landlord or the Tribunal process and the tenant had previously refused to comply with a similar Tribunal order. This case is not on that level.
The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy if the tenant fails to comply with this order is declined.
I conclude by noting however, that in the event the tenant refuses to allow entry for the testing as ordered above, the landlord may then apply to have this case reopened so a termination can be ordered, and if such a request is made, I direct the hearing be returned to me. I want to put the tenant on notice that if she fails to comply with this order, I will give serious consideration to ordering termination at that time.

Order

Irene Scanlon must provide access to unit/flat 5, 17 Segar Avenue, Mount Albert, Auckland 1025, on Wednesday 23 July 2025 at 10.00 am, for Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities to test the premises for contaminants, specifically methamphetamine. This Order serves as notice to the tenant of the intended entry and the reason for it under section 48(2)(ba) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Maturan-Abuid and Mr Temu.
The tenant has agreed to allow entry to the landlord for the purposes of testing as discussed in this order.
A landlord has a right of entry for the purpose of testing for the presence of contaminants or taking samples for such testing, at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it, at least 48 hours but not more than 14 days before the intended entry. The landlord must specify which contaminants are being tested for. See the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) section 48(2)(ba).
The landlord stated that they have twice given the tenant notice to enter the premises for the purposes of testing for methamphetamine, and the tenant has refused entry on both occasions.
The landlord requested a conditional termination if the tenant refuses entry for the purpose of testing for methamphetamine, on the future date.
The landlord stated they were relying on section 78(3) of the RTA which states: “Any order made by the Tribunal may be unconditional or subject to such conditions (whether as to the time for, or mode of, compliance, or otherwise) as the Tribunal thinks fit to impose.”
The landlord provided authority from the Tenancy Tribunal (NZTT 5119728) in which the Adjudicator issued a termination order unless the tenant complied with the order to allow entry to test for methamphetamine contamination.
This is a decision that is persuasive but not binding on me.
I note that the facts of that case include material differences to this case: On that occasion the tenant had already refused to comply with an order from the Tribunal allowing entry to test for methamphetamine. The tenant in this case has not failed to comply with an order allowing entry to test for methamphetamine. The tenant had also not appeared at the hearing, and there was significant information which seemed to indicate unlawful activity at that address. In this case I have not been presented with any concerning circumstances regarding activity at the address, and the tenant has attended and engaged in the hearing in a meaningful way.
The tenant stated that she is willing to allow the landlord access to test for methamphetamine. She stated her previous refusal to allow access was based on her belief that the landlord needed to provide reason to suspect that there was contamination at the premises before they had a right of entry to test, and they hadn’t done so. I advised the tenant her understanding is not factually correct: A landlord may test for contaminants without needing reason to suspect their presence.
The tenant also stated she has had concerns about being evicted from her premises and blamed for contamination if found, when she believes that no baseline test had been undertaken at the beginning of the tenancy.
I am not persuaded that the RTA section 78(3) gives an Adjudicator the power to attach termination of a tenancy, to a breach of any order issued by the Tribunal. There are numerous orders issued by the Tribunal that require a tenant’s conduct to come into line with the RTA or with the terms of a tenancy agreement, where it would be unjust to attach termination as a consequence of failure to comply with the order.
Termination is the most serious consequence to a tenant and the RTA sets out the situations when it can be used. These include termination by notice under section 51 of the RTA, and failing to comply with a 14-day notice to remedy a breach, under section 56 of the RTA. In all these circumstances the determination to terminate the tenacncy is ultimately made by the Tribunal.
The only conditional termination written into the RTA, is for failing to comply with an order to pay rent arrears. See RTA section 55(1A). This is a situation where compliance or non-compliance is relatively black and white. The application usually involves a situation where termination must be ordered for rent arrears, but because both parties agree (and the Tribunal also agrees) that the tenant will be able to pay off the arrears without further breaches, a conditional termination is granted. Refer to RTA section 55(1A)(a) and (b). The relative clarity of the factors involved in that situation are different to this application.
If threat of termination is to be use as a consequence of failing to comply with an order issued by the Tribunal, and the assessment of whether the order has been complied with or not is to be vested to the landlord, then I consider it should only be for the most serious cases and uncontentious cases. The above- mentioned case of NZTT 5119728 may have been that sort of case: The tenants appeared to be involved in an unlawful activity, the tenant was not engaging with landlord or the Tribunal process and the tenant had previously refused to comply with a similar Tribunal order. This case is not on that level.
The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy if the tenant fails to comply with this order is declined.
I conclude by noting however, that in the event the tenant refuses to allow entry for the testing as ordered above, the landlord may then apply to have this case reopened so a termination can be ordered, and if such a request is made, I direct the hearing be returned to me. I want to put the tenant on notice that if she fails to comply with this order, I will give serious consideration to ordering termination at that time.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5266119 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 5, 17 Segar Avenue, Mount Albert, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5266119 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 5, 17 Segar Avenue, Mount Albert, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions