What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5124588 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5124588?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5124588?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5124588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12135048-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5124588 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5124588?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5124588?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5124588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12135048-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5124588 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5124588 — State of repair | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5124588. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties names and identifying details.
This order revokes and replaces the Tribunal order made on 7 April 2025.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing in the Tauranga registry on 11 July 2025.
The landlord’s property manager appeared as agent for the landlord.

CLAIMS

The tenants’ claims are: A. The premises was contaminated with methamphetamine to a level that was unhealthy and required de-contamination. In relation to this claim they seek: i. Compensation - cabin lease - $1,920. ii. Compensation for medical costs and stress - $1,500. iii. Reimbursement of meth testing invoice - $373.75. iv. Exemplary damages. B. The retaliatory noticed served by the landlord on 7 November 2024 is retaliatory. In relation to this claim they seek: i. Compensation for 5 weeks rent they paid between having to vacate this tenancy and moving into their own property - $4,500. ii. Exemplary damages.
The claims in the application form that were withdrawn at the hearing are: a) Breach of the healthy homes standards. b) Compensation for moving expenses – ie storage. c) Rent refund. Accordingly, these claims are dismissed.
The tenants claim the filing fee and applied for name suppression. The landlord applied for name suppression.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy was periodic and commenced on 26 May 2023. The tenancy was for a property in Papamoa.
In October 2024, following the tenant’s son becoming unwell, the tenants placed a cabin on the property for their son to use to see if his health improved by effectively being in the home less often. The landlord initially did not agree to the cabin being at the premises and this led to the explanation from the tenants that they were concerned about methamphetamine contamination. By email on the 14 October 2024 the landlord advised the tenants that they were not aware of any methamphetamine contamination and invited the tenants to arrange testing at their cost.
Emails on 30 and 31 October 2024 indicate the landlord was insisting the tenants remove the cabin and the tenants were refusing to do so until they had the methamphetamine testing results and that they considered the cabin to be a minor change to the premises. On 1 November 2024 the landlord gave his consent for the cabin to remain on the property.
On 7 November 2024 the landlord served the tenants with a 90 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy, advising that the property would be sold. The termination date was 5 February 2025. Later that day the tenants provided the result of the methamphetamine testing. The test results are addressed later in this decision.
On 7 January 2025 the landlord declined to extend the termination date, as requested by the tenants. Later that day the tenants filed their application to the Tribunal.
On 22 December 2024 the landlord signed a sale listing agreement to sell the property which went to auction in February 2025 and settled on 5 March 2025

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
The more serious the claims made the greater the evidential burden on the applicant will be. 1 Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities 1 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55. under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell 2 the Court of Appeal said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct. Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act under the RTA. Before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must take into account the following factors: a) the intent of the person in committing the unlawful act, b) the effect of the unlawful act, c) the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed, d) the public interest, e) whether it is just to make the award. 3
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA.

METHAMPHETAMINE CONTAMINATION

The tenants claim the premises was provided by the landlord to them contaminated with methamphetamine. Section 45 of the RTA relates to a landlord’s responsibilities. The relevant provisions are: 45Landlord’s responsibilities (1)The landlord shall— (a)provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; and (b)provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are 2 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732(Cooke P) 3 Section 109 of the RTA. likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes; and (bd)comply with all requirements in respect of contaminants imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138C(3)(c); and (c)comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises...
A property that is provided to tenants that is contaminated with methamphetamine at levels that require de-contamination, could be considered to have been provided by the landlord in an unclean state and alternatively would not have been provided in a reasonable state of repair.
Section 45 (1) (bd) requires the landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of contaminants imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138C(3)(c). Section 45(1AB) and associated section 45(1AAB) relates to the situation where a landlord rents premises that are contaminated with methamphetamine, or any other regulated substance. There are no regulations passed under the RTA around contamination at this time so these provisions cannot be applied in any case.
Section 45 (1) (c) requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. In 2010 the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories and determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was 0.5 μg/100 cm 2 . As outlined below the Tribunal now applies the recommendations of the Gluckman report in assessing if a premises requires de-contamination due to health concerns. Level that requires decontamination.
As noted above, section 138C of the RTA provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants. There is currently no level specified for de-contamination for methamphetamine.
In 2017 the Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties”. At that time, the Standard set the definitive levels at which properties which had methamphetamine contamination, required remediation. The Standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 . The expectation on landlords arising from the Standard, was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 .
Subsequently, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman concluded that any levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects. 4 The Gluckman report recommended decontamination to the level of 1.5μg/100cm2 only where contamination resulted from manufacture due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the manufacturing process.
There are therefore the two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises - the Standard level of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 and the Gluckman report that there is no evidence of risk below 15 μg/100 cm 2 . The Tenancy Tribunal has adopted the recommendations of the Gluckman report, which concluded that de- contamination is required if contamination is present at levels of 15 μg/100 cm 2 or above. This approach has been approved by the District Court and continues to be applied in Tenancy Tribunal decisions. 5
Methamphetamine testing was not undertaken at the commencement of this tenancy. The tenancy commenced in May 2023. The methamphetamine testing arranged by the tenants was a composite test from samples taken on 1 November 2024 with the results copied below: Lab number 3707522.17: Composite of Foyer, LHS Lounge, RHS Lounge, Kitchen, Dining, Bdrm 1, Ensuite and Bdrm 2 – AN AVERAGE OF 0.74 μg/sample – Potential maximum in single sample 5.9 μg/sample. Lab number 3707522.18: Composite of Bthrm, Toilet, Powder Rm, Bdrm 3, RHS Garage, Garage/Laundry, Bdrm 4 and Hallway – AN AVERAGE OF 0.68 μg/sample – Potential maximum in single sample 5.4μg/sample
Given it was over a year between the commencement of this tenancy and the tenants concerns about contamination being raised and testing being undertaken, I consider there is insufficient evidence of methamphetamine 4 Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018. 5 Full Circle Real Estate Ltd v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 and Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210 contamination at or above the Gluckman standard of 15 μg/100 cm 2, being the level at which the premises would have required de-contamination, at the commencement of the tenancy. The claims in respect of methamphetamine contamination are dismissed.

RETALIATORY NOTICE

On 7 November 2024 the landlord served the tenants with notice to terminate the tenancy. The tenants say the termination notice is retaliatory.
Section 54 of the RTA relates to retaliatory notices. It states: 54Tribunal may declare notice retaliatory (1)This section applies in relation to a notice given by a landlord terminating the tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51 ... ...(2)The tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice was retaliatory on either or both of the following grounds: (a)that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy: (b)that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or performance, or proposed exercise or performance, by the chief executive or any other person of any power or function conferred on the person under this or any other Act in respect of the tenancy or premises. (3)If the tenant makes the application within 28 working days after receiving the termination notice, the tenant may at the same time apply for an order declaring the notice to be of no effect. (4)If the Tribunal is satisfied that either or both of the grounds in subsection (2) apply, the Tribunal must declare the notice to be retaliatory and, if an order is applied for under subsection (3), of no effect. (5)However, the Tribunal need not declare the notice to be retaliatory and of no effect if the Tribunal is satisfied that, in the case of subsection (2)(a), the purported exercise by the tenant of any such right, power, authority, or remedy, or the making by the tenant of any such complaint, was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving the notice. (6)The giving of a notice terminating a tenancy is an unlawful act if the notice is declared under subsection (4) to be retaliatory.
The essential element of a retaliatory notice is the issuing of it in response to a tenant asserting a right or making a complaint, but it need not be the sole motivation, provided the landlord was partially motivated by the tenant asserting the right or making a complaint.
The Tribunal in Easton v Marks 6 considered the meaning of the verb “motivate”. It considered the Webster’s dictionary definition “to furnish with a motive or motives; to give impetus to; to insight; to impel” and held that the landlord was not incited or impelled by the tenant’s actions. The Tribunal in that case noted that: It is one thing to say that an owner of a property has grown somewhat tired of his property being tenanted to persons, it is another thing to say that the tenants gave impetus to, or incited, or impelled the owner to give the notice to quit.
I note the tenants did not apply to set aside the termination notice within 28 days of receiving the termination notice, accordingly there is no jurisdiction to declare the notice of no effect if it is declared retaliatory.
There are three issues to consider: a. Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA? b. Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenants exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord? c. If so, was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenants issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious?

Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA?

I find the notice complies with the technical requirements of s 51. Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord?
The tenants had complained about possible methamphetamine contamination shortly before the termination notice was served.
Given the very short time between the tenants’ complaint and the termination notice being issued I consider I can find a strong inference that the landlord was at least partly motivated by the complaint. 6 Easton v Marks Auckland TT 229/87, 27 May 1987
This then puts an evidential onus on the landlord to show that he was not motivated, even in part, by the tenants exercising the right to make a complaint. 7 A notice of termination given for only genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory. 8
The landlord owner did not attend the hearing therefore the Tribunal was unable to explore the reasons why he decided to give the termination notice at the specific time he did so. However, the landlord did provide a market appraisal he had undertaken on the property on 20 September 2024, before the tenants complained about potential methamphetamine contamination.
The property manager said that the tenancy was terminated as the landlord wanted to sell the property and explained that the property was one of three they were managing, and the landlord gave notice to the tenants in all three properties and all three were sold. In an email to the property manager on 23 January 2025 the landlord owner explained the property was an investment property and he was planning to sell the property this year so that he could buy his own Kiwifruit orchard.
An owner of a rental property has a fundamental right, subject to the provisions of the Act, to deal with their property. In the case of Carver v Kiesanowski 9 , the Court stated that a landlord’s decision to sell the premises was not a retaliatory notice, nor in that case was the decision to sell because it was not economical to maintain the premises. The Court stated at [43]: The purpose behind empowering the Tribunal to declare a termination notice retaliatory and of no effect is to prevent landlords from discriminating against those who assert their rights as tenants or make complaints by ending their tenancy. The provisions designed to protect tenants but not from the legitimate decision any owner may make to sell their property or no longer operate it as a rental.
An owner wishing to dispose of their interest in a property is a genuine reason for a landlord to bring a tenancy to an end. Having considered the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the tenants have established, more likely than not, that in issuing the termination notice the landlord was wholly or partly motivated by the tenants exercising their rights or making a complaint. I note that I therefore do not need to consider whether the landlord was justified in giving the notice because the tenants issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious. The landlord’s intention was to dispose of his interest 7 McIntyre v Just Junction 2017 NZTT 4067876. 8 Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua MA244/88, 3 November 1988 9 Carver v Kiesanowski [2021] NZDC 3939 in the property and he has commenced that process, by obtaining a market appraisal, before the tenant raised any complaint about the tenancy.
There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the decision to sell the premises was not genuine and it aligns with the landlord’s fundamental right to deal with their property. Accordingly, the notice to end the tenancy is not retaliatory, and the claim is dismissed.

FILING FEE

As the tenants have not been successful in the claim, I decline to award the filing fee.

SUPPRESSION

The tenants sought suppression. The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful in their claim, however in having regards to the public interest and the tenant’s interests (who I consider held sincere concerns about methamphetamine contamination and the impact this may have had on their son’s health), I make an order suppressing the tenants’ names.
The landlord has had substantial success in defending the tenant’s claims, therefore the landlord is entitled to name suppression.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5124588. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties names and identifying details.
This order revokes and replaces the Tribunal order made on 7 April 2025.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing in the Tauranga registry on 11 July 2025.
The landlord’s property manager appeared as agent for the landlord.

CLAIMS

The tenants’ claims are: A. The premises was contaminated with methamphetamine to a level that was unhealthy and required de-contamination. In relation to this claim they seek: i. Compensation - cabin lease - $1,920. ii. Compensation for medical costs and stress - $1,500. iii. Reimbursement of meth testing invoice - $373.75. iv. Exemplary damages. B. The retaliatory noticed served by the landlord on 7 November 2024 is retaliatory. In relation to this claim they seek: i. Compensation for 5 weeks rent they paid between having to vacate this tenancy and moving into their own property - $4,500. ii. Exemplary damages.
The claims in the application form that were withdrawn at the hearing are: a) Breach of the healthy homes standards. b) Compensation for moving expenses – ie storage. c) Rent refund. Accordingly, these claims are dismissed.
The tenants claim the filing fee and applied for name suppression. The landlord applied for name suppression.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy was periodic and commenced on 26 May 2023. The tenancy was for a property in Papamoa.
In October 2024, following the tenant’s son becoming unwell, the tenants placed a cabin on the property for their son to use to see if his health improved by effectively being in the home less often. The landlord initially did not agree to the cabin being at the premises and this led to the explanation from the tenants that they were concerned about methamphetamine contamination. By email on the 14 October 2024 the landlord advised the tenants that they were not aware of any methamphetamine contamination and invited the tenants to arrange testing at their cost.
Emails on 30 and 31 October 2024 indicate the landlord was insisting the tenants remove the cabin and the tenants were refusing to do so until they had the methamphetamine testing results and that they considered the cabin to be a minor change to the premises. On 1 November 2024 the landlord gave his consent for the cabin to remain on the property.
On 7 November 2024 the landlord served the tenants with a 90 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy, advising that the property would be sold. The termination date was 5 February 2025. Later that day the tenants provided the result of the methamphetamine testing. The test results are addressed later in this decision.
On 7 January 2025 the landlord declined to extend the termination date, as requested by the tenants. Later that day the tenants filed their application to the Tribunal.
On 22 December 2024 the landlord signed a sale listing agreement to sell the property which went to auction in February 2025 and settled on 5 March 2025

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
The more serious the claims made the greater the evidential burden on the applicant will be. 1 Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities 1 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55. under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell 2 the Court of Appeal said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct. Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act under the RTA. Before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must take into account the following factors: a) the intent of the person in committing the unlawful act, b) the effect of the unlawful act, c) the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed, d) the public interest, e) whether it is just to make the award. 3
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA.

METHAMPHETAMINE CONTAMINATION

The tenants claim the premises was provided by the landlord to them contaminated with methamphetamine. Section 45 of the RTA relates to a landlord’s responsibilities. The relevant provisions are: 45Landlord’s responsibilities (1)The landlord shall— (a)provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; and (b)provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are 2 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732(Cooke P) 3 Section 109 of the RTA. likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes; and (bd)comply with all requirements in respect of contaminants imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138C(3)(c); and (c)comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises...
A property that is provided to tenants that is contaminated with methamphetamine at levels that require de-contamination, could be considered to have been provided by the landlord in an unclean state and alternatively would not have been provided in a reasonable state of repair.
Section 45 (1) (bd) requires the landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of contaminants imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138C(3)(c). Section 45(1AB) and associated section 45(1AAB) relates to the situation where a landlord rents premises that are contaminated with methamphetamine, or any other regulated substance. There are no regulations passed under the RTA around contamination at this time so these provisions cannot be applied in any case.
Section 45 (1) (c) requires a landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. In 2010 the New Zealand Ministry of Health produced guidelines for the remediation of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories and determined that remediation was required if the environmental level of methamphetamine was 0.5 μg/100 cm 2 . As outlined below the Tribunal now applies the recommendations of the Gluckman report in assessing if a premises requires de-contamination due to health concerns. Level that requires decontamination.
As noted above, section 138C of the RTA provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants. There is currently no level specified for de-contamination for methamphetamine.
In 2017 the Standards New Zealand released Standard NZS 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties”. At that time, the Standard set the definitive levels at which properties which had methamphetamine contamination, required remediation. The Standard confirmed that the level at which habitation of residential premises was considered safe, was a level of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 . The expectation on landlords arising from the Standard, was to remediate premises contaminated with methamphetamine, to a level of less than 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 .
Subsequently, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman concluded that any levels below 15 μg/100 cm 2 were unlikely to present adverse effects. 4 The Gluckman report recommended decontamination to the level of 1.5μg/100cm2 only where contamination resulted from manufacture due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the manufacturing process.
There are therefore the two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises - the Standard level of 1.5 μg/100 cm 2 and the Gluckman report that there is no evidence of risk below 15 μg/100 cm 2 . The Tenancy Tribunal has adopted the recommendations of the Gluckman report, which concluded that de- contamination is required if contamination is present at levels of 15 μg/100 cm 2 or above. This approach has been approved by the District Court and continues to be applied in Tenancy Tribunal decisions. 5
Methamphetamine testing was not undertaken at the commencement of this tenancy. The tenancy commenced in May 2023. The methamphetamine testing arranged by the tenants was a composite test from samples taken on 1 November 2024 with the results copied below: Lab number 3707522.17: Composite of Foyer, LHS Lounge, RHS Lounge, Kitchen, Dining, Bdrm 1, Ensuite and Bdrm 2 – AN AVERAGE OF 0.74 μg/sample – Potential maximum in single sample 5.9 μg/sample. Lab number 3707522.18: Composite of Bthrm, Toilet, Powder Rm, Bdrm 3, RHS Garage, Garage/Laundry, Bdrm 4 and Hallway – AN AVERAGE OF 0.68 μg/sample – Potential maximum in single sample 5.4μg/sample
Given it was over a year between the commencement of this tenancy and the tenants concerns about contamination being raised and testing being undertaken, I consider there is insufficient evidence of methamphetamine 4 Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018. 5 Full Circle Real Estate Ltd v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 and Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210 contamination at or above the Gluckman standard of 15 μg/100 cm 2, being the level at which the premises would have required de-contamination, at the commencement of the tenancy. The claims in respect of methamphetamine contamination are dismissed.

RETALIATORY NOTICE

On 7 November 2024 the landlord served the tenants with notice to terminate the tenancy. The tenants say the termination notice is retaliatory.
Section 54 of the RTA relates to retaliatory notices. It states: 54Tribunal may declare notice retaliatory (1)This section applies in relation to a notice given by a landlord terminating the tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51 ... ...(2)The tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice was retaliatory on either or both of the following grounds: (a)that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy: (b)that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or performance, or proposed exercise or performance, by the chief executive or any other person of any power or function conferred on the person under this or any other Act in respect of the tenancy or premises. (3)If the tenant makes the application within 28 working days after receiving the termination notice, the tenant may at the same time apply for an order declaring the notice to be of no effect. (4)If the Tribunal is satisfied that either or both of the grounds in subsection (2) apply, the Tribunal must declare the notice to be retaliatory and, if an order is applied for under subsection (3), of no effect. (5)However, the Tribunal need not declare the notice to be retaliatory and of no effect if the Tribunal is satisfied that, in the case of subsection (2)(a), the purported exercise by the tenant of any such right, power, authority, or remedy, or the making by the tenant of any such complaint, was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving the notice. (6)The giving of a notice terminating a tenancy is an unlawful act if the notice is declared under subsection (4) to be retaliatory.
The essential element of a retaliatory notice is the issuing of it in response to a tenant asserting a right or making a complaint, but it need not be the sole motivation, provided the landlord was partially motivated by the tenant asserting the right or making a complaint.
The Tribunal in Easton v Marks 6 considered the meaning of the verb “motivate”. It considered the Webster’s dictionary definition “to furnish with a motive or motives; to give impetus to; to insight; to impel” and held that the landlord was not incited or impelled by the tenant’s actions. The Tribunal in that case noted that: It is one thing to say that an owner of a property has grown somewhat tired of his property being tenanted to persons, it is another thing to say that the tenants gave impetus to, or incited, or impelled the owner to give the notice to quit.
I note the tenants did not apply to set aside the termination notice within 28 days of receiving the termination notice, accordingly there is no jurisdiction to declare the notice of no effect if it is declared retaliatory.
There are three issues to consider: a. Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA? b. Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenants exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord? c. If so, was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenants issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious?

Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA?

I find the notice complies with the technical requirements of s 51. Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord?
The tenants had complained about possible methamphetamine contamination shortly before the termination notice was served.
Given the very short time between the tenants’ complaint and the termination notice being issued I consider I can find a strong inference that the landlord was at least partly motivated by the complaint. 6 Easton v Marks Auckland TT 229/87, 27 May 1987
This then puts an evidential onus on the landlord to show that he was not motivated, even in part, by the tenants exercising the right to make a complaint. 7 A notice of termination given for only genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory. 8
The landlord owner did not attend the hearing therefore the Tribunal was unable to explore the reasons why he decided to give the termination notice at the specific time he did so. However, the landlord did provide a market appraisal he had undertaken on the property on 20 September 2024, before the tenants complained about potential methamphetamine contamination.
The property manager said that the tenancy was terminated as the landlord wanted to sell the property and explained that the property was one of three they were managing, and the landlord gave notice to the tenants in all three properties and all three were sold. In an email to the property manager on 23 January 2025 the landlord owner explained the property was an investment property and he was planning to sell the property this year so that he could buy his own Kiwifruit orchard.
An owner of a rental property has a fundamental right, subject to the provisions of the Act, to deal with their property. In the case of Carver v Kiesanowski 9 , the Court stated that a landlord’s decision to sell the premises was not a retaliatory notice, nor in that case was the decision to sell because it was not economical to maintain the premises. The Court stated at [43]: The purpose behind empowering the Tribunal to declare a termination notice retaliatory and of no effect is to prevent landlords from discriminating against those who assert their rights as tenants or make complaints by ending their tenancy. The provisions designed to protect tenants but not from the legitimate decision any owner may make to sell their property or no longer operate it as a rental.
An owner wishing to dispose of their interest in a property is a genuine reason for a landlord to bring a tenancy to an end. Having considered the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the tenants have established, more likely than not, that in issuing the termination notice the landlord was wholly or partly motivated by the tenants exercising their rights or making a complaint. I note that I therefore do not need to consider whether the landlord was justified in giving the notice because the tenants issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious. The landlord’s intention was to dispose of his interest 7 McIntyre v Just Junction 2017 NZTT 4067876. 8 Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua MA244/88, 3 November 1988 9 Carver v Kiesanowski [2021] NZDC 3939 in the property and he has commenced that process, by obtaining a market appraisal, before the tenant raised any complaint about the tenancy.
There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the decision to sell the premises was not genuine and it aligns with the landlord’s fundamental right to deal with their property. Accordingly, the notice to end the tenancy is not retaliatory, and the claim is dismissed.

FILING FEE

As the tenants have not been successful in the claim, I decline to award the filing fee.

SUPPRESSION

The tenants sought suppression. The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful in their claim, however in having regards to the public interest and the tenant’s interests (who I consider held sincere concerns about methamphetamine contamination and the impact this may have had on their son’s health), I make an order suppressing the tenants’ names.
The landlord has had substantial success in defending the tenant’s claims, therefore the landlord is entitled to name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5124588 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5124588 — State of repair

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

CLAIMS

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

METHAMPHETAMINE CONTAMINATION

RETALIATORY NOTICE

Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA?

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

CLAIMS

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

METHAMPHETAMINE CONTAMINATION

RETALIATORY NOTICE

Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA?

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions