What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5133729 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5133729?

Rent Arrears: $294.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5133729?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5133729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12272374-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5133729 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5133729?

Rent Arrears: $294.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5133729?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5133729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12272374-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 32 Willoughby Street, Whitiora, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5133729 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5133729. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 23 October 2024	$294.86		Rent arrears to 23 October 2024

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Linkpeople Limited $294.86 immediately, as set out in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $294.86 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Linkpeople Limited immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $41.14 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenancy commenced on 21 January 2022 and ended on 23 October 2024. The landlord filed their claim on 15 January 2025. As the claim was filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy, the usual rules of service do not apply. The application and notice of hearing for 10 June 2025 were personally served on the tenant on 30 April 2025. On 10 June 2025, Ms Shea and Ms Sayers appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
Ms Shea advised that the property manager, Mr Islam, who prepared the claim and was expected to attend the hearing was on leave for personal reasons. As the tenant had not appeared, the matter was adjourned.
On 08 July 2025, the matter was rescheduled for hearing on 15 August 2025. A notice of hearing has been sent to the tenant at their address for service. Ms Shea and Mr Islam have appeared for the landlord. There has been no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord claims are that the tenant: i. Owes rent arrears ($294.86), ii. Is responsible for methamphetamine contamination ($4,222.80), iii. Is responsible for damage caused by the contamination ($6,658.50), iv. Used or allowed the property to be used for an unlawful purpose (exemplary damages
In brackets next to the claims is the compensation sought.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

Is the tenant liable for rent arrears?

The New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties” (“NZS8510:2017”) provides industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and clean-up of methamphetamine contamination in houses. The standard was released on 29 June 2017 and adopts a single level of 1.5μg/100cm² (1.5 micrograms of methamphetamine per 100 square centimetres of surface sampled (ug)).
The standard recommends that ‘high use areas’ of affected properties should be decontaminated. High use areas are defined as those areas that can be easily accessed and are regularly used by adults and children.
On 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman (Prime Minister’s then Chief Science Advisor) determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018).
The “Gluckman Report” concluded that in the absence of other evidence of manufacture, any levels below 15μg are highly unlikely to present adverse effects, and therefore there should be no need for remediation.
The Tribunal has adopted the 15ug threshold as a level of contamination constituting damage. This has been confirmed by the Court. Evidence
On 08 October 2025, the landlord conducted methamphetamine testing at the property revealing readings above 15 ug.
On 18 October 2025, the landlord served the tenant with a seven - day notice to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that the property was uninhabitable due to methamphetamine contamination. The tenant did not challenge the notice and was assisted to relocate by the landlord.
The landlord has produced an up to date rent summary proving the arrears owed to the end of the tenancy on 23 October 2024. Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine contamination and damage, and have they used the property for an unlawful purpose.
To award compensation for damage occurring by contamination the Tribunal must be satisfied that: i. The contamination has occurred during the tenancy: and, ii. It has reached a level deemed to have caused damage.
To establish that contamination occurred during the tenancy, the Tribunal must be able to make an accurate comparison between pre tenancy and end of tenancy testing.
Under section 40(2)(b) of the Act., a tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
It is unlawful to use methamphetamine or permit any premises to be used for the consumption of methamphetamine. Evidence
The property is a single bedroom unit in a complex built in the 1970’s. It comprises of an open plan kitchen / dining / lounge, bathroom, which contains the toilet and laundry, and a bedroom. The landlord is a social housing provider offering accommodation to those with mental health and addiction issues.
The property has been offered by the landlord for rental purposes since 2017. Prior to that it was a property managed by Housing New Zealand.
Composite pre tenancy testing for the presence of methamphetamine was conducted on 21 September 2021. Samples taken from a light switch in the lounge and on the rangehood in the kitchen were combined and returned a composite result of less than 0.02 μg. Any contamination below this level is undetectable. The samples were taken by a property manager for the landlord and sent to a reputable laboratory for analysis.
Those taking the samples should follow screening and sampling methods set out in the New Zealand Standards.
The landlord has recently arranged for property managers to complete a New Zealand standard approved course in methamphetamine screening and sampling.
On 08 October 2024, Mr Islam who unlike his predecessor has completed a New Zealand standard approved course in methamphetamine screening and sampling, conducted further testing.
Four separate sites were sampled: i. Kitchen (11.7 ug), ii. Lounge (0.67 ug), iii. Bedroom (26.6 ug), iv. Bedroom (19.1 ug).
The report prepared by Mr Islam includes photographs of the sites sampled.
The landlord has also produced certificates of analysis for composite testing on 21 March 2024, and 12 June 2024, also conducted by Mr Islam.
The certificates show that on 21 March 2024, samples from the rangehood, lounge, and two from the bedroom were combined, producing a composite reading of 0.76 ug.
On 12 June 2024, samples taken from the kitchen, lounge, and two from the bedroom were combined producing a composite reading of 2.39ug.
Unlike the testing completed on 08 October 2024, neither include photographs showing the sites sampled. Decision
The primary issue is whether the Tribunal can be satisfied that the tenant is more likely than not responsible for contamination occurring during the tenancy.
I am not satisfied that the tenant is more likely than not responsible for the contamination.
The testing was conducted on 21 September 2021 which was 4 months prior to the commencement of the tenancy on 21 January 2022. In the circumstances on its own this gap is significant.
It is unknown whether the property manager who took the samples on 21 September 2021 followed correct screening and sampling methods.
There are no photographs showing the sites sampled on 21 September 2021.
The testing completed on 21 March 2024 and 12 June 2024 was composite testing and there are no photographs of the sites sampled.
The description of the sites sampled in the certificates of analysis are insufficient to be satisfied that the sites tested were the same or proximate to those previously tested.
No accurate comparison can be made between the 21 September 2021 and 08 October 2024 results.
There is no other evidence of methamphetamine use by the tenant at the property. No utensils or point bags, commonly used for methamphetamine, were located. There are no witness statements stating that the tenant used methamphetamine at the property.
The claims for contamination, damage, and unlawful use are dismissed. Name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has been substantially successful and the Tribunal orders suppression of their name. The landlord seeks suppression. However, they have not been sufficiently successful and there request for name suppression is declined.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5133729. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 23 October 2024	$294.86		Rent arrears to 23 October 2024

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Linkpeople Limited $294.86 immediately, as set out in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $294.86 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Linkpeople Limited immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $41.14 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenancy commenced on 21 January 2022 and ended on 23 October 2024. The landlord filed their claim on 15 January 2025. As the claim was filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy, the usual rules of service do not apply. The application and notice of hearing for 10 June 2025 were personally served on the tenant on 30 April 2025. On 10 June 2025, Ms Shea and Ms Sayers appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
Ms Shea advised that the property manager, Mr Islam, who prepared the claim and was expected to attend the hearing was on leave for personal reasons. As the tenant had not appeared, the matter was adjourned.
On 08 July 2025, the matter was rescheduled for hearing on 15 August 2025. A notice of hearing has been sent to the tenant at their address for service. Ms Shea and Mr Islam have appeared for the landlord. There has been no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord claims are that the tenant: i. Owes rent arrears ($294.86), ii. Is responsible for methamphetamine contamination ($4,222.80), iii. Is responsible for damage caused by the contamination ($6,658.50), iv. Used or allowed the property to be used for an unlawful purpose (exemplary damages
In brackets next to the claims is the compensation sought.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

Is the tenant liable for rent arrears?

The New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties” (“NZS8510:2017”) provides industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and clean-up of methamphetamine contamination in houses. The standard was released on 29 June 2017 and adopts a single level of 1.5μg/100cm² (1.5 micrograms of methamphetamine per 100 square centimetres of surface sampled (ug)).
The standard recommends that ‘high use areas’ of affected properties should be decontaminated. High use areas are defined as those areas that can be easily accessed and are regularly used by adults and children.
On 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman (Prime Minister’s then Chief Science Advisor) determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018).
The “Gluckman Report” concluded that in the absence of other evidence of manufacture, any levels below 15μg are highly unlikely to present adverse effects, and therefore there should be no need for remediation.
The Tribunal has adopted the 15ug threshold as a level of contamination constituting damage. This has been confirmed by the Court. Evidence
On 08 October 2025, the landlord conducted methamphetamine testing at the property revealing readings above 15 ug.
On 18 October 2025, the landlord served the tenant with a seven - day notice to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that the property was uninhabitable due to methamphetamine contamination. The tenant did not challenge the notice and was assisted to relocate by the landlord.
The landlord has produced an up to date rent summary proving the arrears owed to the end of the tenancy on 23 October 2024. Is the tenant responsible for methamphetamine contamination and damage, and have they used the property for an unlawful purpose.
To award compensation for damage occurring by contamination the Tribunal must be satisfied that: i. The contamination has occurred during the tenancy: and, ii. It has reached a level deemed to have caused damage.
To establish that contamination occurred during the tenancy, the Tribunal must be able to make an accurate comparison between pre tenancy and end of tenancy testing.
Under section 40(2)(b) of the Act., a tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
It is unlawful to use methamphetamine or permit any premises to be used for the consumption of methamphetamine. Evidence
The property is a single bedroom unit in a complex built in the 1970’s. It comprises of an open plan kitchen / dining / lounge, bathroom, which contains the toilet and laundry, and a bedroom. The landlord is a social housing provider offering accommodation to those with mental health and addiction issues.
The property has been offered by the landlord for rental purposes since 2017. Prior to that it was a property managed by Housing New Zealand.
Composite pre tenancy testing for the presence of methamphetamine was conducted on 21 September 2021. Samples taken from a light switch in the lounge and on the rangehood in the kitchen were combined and returned a composite result of less than 0.02 μg. Any contamination below this level is undetectable. The samples were taken by a property manager for the landlord and sent to a reputable laboratory for analysis.
Those taking the samples should follow screening and sampling methods set out in the New Zealand Standards.
The landlord has recently arranged for property managers to complete a New Zealand standard approved course in methamphetamine screening and sampling.
On 08 October 2024, Mr Islam who unlike his predecessor has completed a New Zealand standard approved course in methamphetamine screening and sampling, conducted further testing.
Four separate sites were sampled: i. Kitchen (11.7 ug), ii. Lounge (0.67 ug), iii. Bedroom (26.6 ug), iv. Bedroom (19.1 ug).
The report prepared by Mr Islam includes photographs of the sites sampled.
The landlord has also produced certificates of analysis for composite testing on 21 March 2024, and 12 June 2024, also conducted by Mr Islam.
The certificates show that on 21 March 2024, samples from the rangehood, lounge, and two from the bedroom were combined, producing a composite reading of 0.76 ug.
On 12 June 2024, samples taken from the kitchen, lounge, and two from the bedroom were combined producing a composite reading of 2.39ug.
Unlike the testing completed on 08 October 2024, neither include photographs showing the sites sampled. Decision
The primary issue is whether the Tribunal can be satisfied that the tenant is more likely than not responsible for contamination occurring during the tenancy.
I am not satisfied that the tenant is more likely than not responsible for the contamination.
The testing was conducted on 21 September 2021 which was 4 months prior to the commencement of the tenancy on 21 January 2022. In the circumstances on its own this gap is significant.
It is unknown whether the property manager who took the samples on 21 September 2021 followed correct screening and sampling methods.
There are no photographs showing the sites sampled on 21 September 2021.
The testing completed on 21 March 2024 and 12 June 2024 was composite testing and there are no photographs of the sites sampled.
The description of the sites sampled in the certificates of analysis are insufficient to be satisfied that the sites tested were the same or proximate to those previously tested.
No accurate comparison can be made between the 21 September 2021 and 08 October 2024 results.
There is no other evidence of methamphetamine use by the tenant at the property. No utensils or point bags, commonly used for methamphetamine, were located. There are no witness statements stating that the tenant used methamphetamine at the property.
The claims for contamination, damage, and unlawful use are dismissed. Name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has been substantially successful and the Tribunal orders suppression of their name. The landlord seeks suppression. However, they have not been sufficiently successful and there request for name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5133729 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 5, 32 Willoughby Street, Whitiora, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5133729 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 5, 32 Willoughby Street, Whitiora, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions