What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5445212?

The tribunal order states: The tenant Rawinia Semonny Andrews must grant access to the landlord

How much money was awarded in case 5445212?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5445212?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5445212?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13348131-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5445212?

The tribunal order states: The tenant Rawinia Semonny Andrews must grant access to the landlord

How much money was awarded in case 5445212?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5445212?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5445212?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13348131-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 11, 9 Cracroft Street, Parnell, Auckland 1052 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5445212 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5445212 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Order

The tenant Rawinia Semonny Andrews must grant access to the landlord Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities and allow the landlord to inspect the premises at Flat 11, 9 Cracroft Street, Parnell, Auckland between 10am and 12pm on Tuesday, 31 March 2026. DescriptionLandlord Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$28.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$28.00

Reasons

The matter was scheduled for a face-to-face hearing. Mr Campbell sought leave to attend the hearing by teleconference, which was granted.
There were no issues connecting with Mr Campbell, and he attended the hearing by teleconference.
The tenant, Ms Andrews, did not attend.
Shortly before the hearing, the Tribunal registry received an email from Ms Andrews seeking an adjournment. She stated that she was unable to attend due to feeling overwhelmed and experiencing mental health difficulties, and that her support worker was unavailable to attend with her. She requested that the hearing be rescheduled so she could have appropriate support. Adjournment application
Ms Andrews sought an adjournment on the basis that: a. she was unable to attend due to mental health concerns; and b. her support worker was unavailable to assist her at the hearing.
The application for adjournment is declined for the following reasons: a. Ms Andrews has filed detailed written submissions. Her opposition to the landlord’s application, including the reasons relied upon, is already before the Tribunal. The issue for determination is whether those reasons amount to a reasonable excuse for refusing access under section 48(4)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”). b. The landlord has raised concerns regarding potential methamphetamine contamination. In those circumstances, the landlord has a duty of care to ensure the premises are safe. I consider the issue of access to be urgent. c. During the hearing, I attempted to contact Ms Andrews by telephone using the number the landlord provided. The call was not answered. I left a voicemail message advising that the adjournment request had been declined and that the hearing would proceed in her absence.
In these circumstances, I am satisfied it is appropriate to proceed. Background
The tenancy commenced on 19 March 2019 and remains ongoing.
The landlord issued a notice of entry on 2 December 2025 for methamphetamine testing scheduled on 12 December 2025.
On 11 December 2025, a 14-day notice to remedy was issued requiring the tenant to provide access.
Further attempts to access the premises were scheduled on 14 January 2026 and 10 February 2026. Access was refused. Landlord’s submissions
The landlord submits that: a. It has concerns about possible methamphetamine contamination arising from activity at the premises, including reports of break-ins, unknown visitors, and individuals associated with drug-related offending. b. Multiple notices of entry have been issued and the tenant has been informed of the purpose of the visits. c. Access has been refused on several occasions, including when contractors, security, and a locksmith attended. d. The landlord requires testing to ensure the safety of the tenant, staff, and contractors. e. If contamination is identified, steps can be taken, including facilitating a transfer; if not, the landlord will have certainty as to the condition of the property.
The landlord seeks an order requiring access. It does not seek termination at this stage. Tenant’s submissions
Ms Andrews’ written submissions state that: a. There is no evidence of methamphetamine contamination and she denies any involvement in illegal activity. b. No baseline test was conducted at the start of the tenancy, and any contamination may relate to previous occupants. c. There has been a lack of communication and transparency from the landlord. d. She disputes that she has unreasonably refused access. e. She has ongoing safety concerns at the complex, including threats and disturbances. f. She is awaiting a housing transfer and seeks to remain in the property until that occurs. Issues
The issues for determination are: a. Whether the landlord was entitled to enter under s 48(2)(ba); b. Whether the tenant has unreasonably refused access; c. Whether an order under s 77(m) should be made. Analysis
Section 48(2) of the Act permits a landlord to enter premises for lawful purposes, including inspection and matters relating to maintenance and safety, provided appropriate notice is given.
Section 48(2) gives the landlord the right to enter in specific circumstances, and methamphetamine testing is one such circumstance. In my view, whether the tenant has engaged in illegal activity, or whether the landlord merely suspects such activity has occurred on the premises, is not a relevant consideration. What is required is compliance with the notice period, and that the purpose of entry is to test for the presence of contaminants or to take samples for such testing under section 48(2)(ba).
In the present case, the landlord made it clear in the notice that it needed “to enter your home to test for the presence of methamphetamine (meth) contamination.” The purpose of the entry is crystal clear. Accordingly, I am satisfied that: a. The landlord issued multiple notices of entry; b. A 14-day notice to remedy was issued and not complied with; c. The tenant did not allow access on several scheduled occasions.
The tenant’s written submissions focus on the absence of evidence, process concerns, and her personal circumstances.
However, the absence of confirmed contamination does not negate the landlord’s right to investigate potential health and safety risks. Similarly, personal circumstances and housing concerns do not provide a lawful excuse to refuse access where proper notice has been given.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has established a reasonable excuse for refusing access.
Accordingly, I find that the tenant has breached her obligations under s 48(2)(ba). It is appropriate to make an order under s 77(m) to refrain the tenant from refusing entry. Further matters (non-compliance warning)
Mr Campbell confirmed during the hearing that the landlord intends to carry out the methamphetamine testing on 31 March 2026 at 10:00 am.
He further advised that if the tenant again refuses lawful entry, including entry authorised by this order, the landlord is likely to file a further application seeking termination of the tenancy. Filing fee
Because Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities has wholly succeeded with the application, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5445212 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Order

The tenant Rawinia Semonny Andrews must grant access to the landlord Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities and allow the landlord to inspect the premises at Flat 11, 9 Cracroft Street, Parnell, Auckland between 10am and 12pm on Tuesday, 31 March 2026. DescriptionLandlord Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$28.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$28.00

Reasons

The matter was scheduled for a face-to-face hearing. Mr Campbell sought leave to attend the hearing by teleconference, which was granted.
There were no issues connecting with Mr Campbell, and he attended the hearing by teleconference.
The tenant, Ms Andrews, did not attend.
Shortly before the hearing, the Tribunal registry received an email from Ms Andrews seeking an adjournment. She stated that she was unable to attend due to feeling overwhelmed and experiencing mental health difficulties, and that her support worker was unavailable to attend with her. She requested that the hearing be rescheduled so she could have appropriate support. Adjournment application
Ms Andrews sought an adjournment on the basis that: a. she was unable to attend due to mental health concerns; and b. her support worker was unavailable to assist her at the hearing.
The application for adjournment is declined for the following reasons: a. Ms Andrews has filed detailed written submissions. Her opposition to the landlord’s application, including the reasons relied upon, is already before the Tribunal. The issue for determination is whether those reasons amount to a reasonable excuse for refusing access under section 48(4)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”). b. The landlord has raised concerns regarding potential methamphetamine contamination. In those circumstances, the landlord has a duty of care to ensure the premises are safe. I consider the issue of access to be urgent. c. During the hearing, I attempted to contact Ms Andrews by telephone using the number the landlord provided. The call was not answered. I left a voicemail message advising that the adjournment request had been declined and that the hearing would proceed in her absence.
In these circumstances, I am satisfied it is appropriate to proceed. Background
The tenancy commenced on 19 March 2019 and remains ongoing.
The landlord issued a notice of entry on 2 December 2025 for methamphetamine testing scheduled on 12 December 2025.
On 11 December 2025, a 14-day notice to remedy was issued requiring the tenant to provide access.
Further attempts to access the premises were scheduled on 14 January 2026 and 10 February 2026. Access was refused. Landlord’s submissions
The landlord submits that: a. It has concerns about possible methamphetamine contamination arising from activity at the premises, including reports of break-ins, unknown visitors, and individuals associated with drug-related offending. b. Multiple notices of entry have been issued and the tenant has been informed of the purpose of the visits. c. Access has been refused on several occasions, including when contractors, security, and a locksmith attended. d. The landlord requires testing to ensure the safety of the tenant, staff, and contractors. e. If contamination is identified, steps can be taken, including facilitating a transfer; if not, the landlord will have certainty as to the condition of the property.
The landlord seeks an order requiring access. It does not seek termination at this stage. Tenant’s submissions
Ms Andrews’ written submissions state that: a. There is no evidence of methamphetamine contamination and she denies any involvement in illegal activity. b. No baseline test was conducted at the start of the tenancy, and any contamination may relate to previous occupants. c. There has been a lack of communication and transparency from the landlord. d. She disputes that she has unreasonably refused access. e. She has ongoing safety concerns at the complex, including threats and disturbances. f. She is awaiting a housing transfer and seeks to remain in the property until that occurs. Issues
The issues for determination are: a. Whether the landlord was entitled to enter under s 48(2)(ba); b. Whether the tenant has unreasonably refused access; c. Whether an order under s 77(m) should be made. Analysis
Section 48(2) of the Act permits a landlord to enter premises for lawful purposes, including inspection and matters relating to maintenance and safety, provided appropriate notice is given.
Section 48(2) gives the landlord the right to enter in specific circumstances, and methamphetamine testing is one such circumstance. In my view, whether the tenant has engaged in illegal activity, or whether the landlord merely suspects such activity has occurred on the premises, is not a relevant consideration. What is required is compliance with the notice period, and that the purpose of entry is to test for the presence of contaminants or to take samples for such testing under section 48(2)(ba).
In the present case, the landlord made it clear in the notice that it needed “to enter your home to test for the presence of methamphetamine (meth) contamination.” The purpose of the entry is crystal clear. Accordingly, I am satisfied that: a. The landlord issued multiple notices of entry; b. A 14-day notice to remedy was issued and not complied with; c. The tenant did not allow access on several scheduled occasions.
The tenant’s written submissions focus on the absence of evidence, process concerns, and her personal circumstances.
However, the absence of confirmed contamination does not negate the landlord’s right to investigate potential health and safety risks. Similarly, personal circumstances and housing concerns do not provide a lawful excuse to refuse access where proper notice has been given.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has established a reasonable excuse for refusing access.
Accordingly, I find that the tenant has breached her obligations under s 48(2)(ba). It is appropriate to make an order under s 77(m) to refrain the tenant from refusing entry. Further matters (non-compliance warning)
Mr Campbell confirmed during the hearing that the landlord intends to carry out the methamphetamine testing on 31 March 2026 at 10:00 am.
He further advised that if the tenant again refuses lawful entry, including entry authorised by this order, the landlord is likely to file a further application seeking termination of the tenancy. Filing fee
Because Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities has wholly succeeded with the application, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5445212 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 11, 9 Cracroft Street, Parnell, Auckland 1052

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5445212 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 11, 9 Cracroft Street, Parnell, Auckland 1052

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions