What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5181713 about?

The tribunal order states: The name and identifying details of the landlord and of the tenant are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5181713?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5181713?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5181713?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11619987-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5181713 about?

The tribunal order states: The name and identifying details of the landlord and of the tenant are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5181713?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5181713?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5181713?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11619987-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

23 Fred Woodward Place, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5181713 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The name and identifying details of the landlord and of the tenant are suppressed.
[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held by telephone on 11 March 2025. The tenant had a support person with him who the Tribunal allowed to speak on his behalf at the end of the hearing.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises on the grounds that:- a. The premises are contaminated with methamphetamine at a level the landlord says makes the premises uninhabitable, and b. The landlord has terminated the tenancy as at Friday 27 December 2024 by giving the tenant at least 7 days written notice to do so on the basis that the premises are uninhabitable.
The tenant remains living at the premises and does not want to vacate.

What has happened?

This tenancy started on 17 September 2019.
On 27 August 2024, the New Zealand Police notified the landlord that, on 16 June 2024, the police had seized a large amount of chemicals from the premises and recommended an assessment in the interests of public health and safety.
On 9 October 2024, the premises were tested for methamphetamine. The landlord has provided the laboratory analysis and testing reports. These show that nineteen samples from throughout the house have tested positive. Five sample results are above 15 micrograms (mcg) in a 100cm 2 sample area.
On 17 December 2024, the landlord gave the tenant the termination notice.
The tenant initially agreed to move out of the premises but has since changed his mind.
In mid-January 2025, the tenant arranged for his own testing to be done and sent these results to the landlord.
On 27 February 2025, the landlord applied to the Tribunal for a possession order. When are tenancy premises considered to be “uninhabitable”?
Sections 59, 59A and 59B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) set out the law that applies when tenancy premises are uninhabitable.
Section 59B RTA will apply once Parliament has passed regulations to set a legal “maximum inhabitable level” for methamphetamine (and other contaminants). Those regulations have not yet been made.
This means that sections 59 and 59A RTA apply. These sections require the Tribunal to decide when premises are uninhabitable.
There is ongoing uncertainty about methamphetamine contamination levels in residential tenancy premises in New Zealand. There is no standard set in law as yet and the two most accepted sources of (non-legal) guidance in New Zealand are quite different in their recommendations:- a. The New Zealand Standard NZS 8510:2017 Testing and Decontamination of Methamphetamine Contaminated Properties, provides industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and clean-up of meth contamination in houses. The standard considers a house to be contaminated if meth is present at levels higher than 1.5mcg/100 cm 2 . b. A previous Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, released a report in 2018 on the health effects of methamphetamine residue in residential properties — Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards (the CSA report). The report concluded that residue levels below 15mcg/100 cm 2 would be unlikely to cause adverse health effects if there was no evidence of methamphetamine manufacture in the property.
Previous Tribunal decisions have concluded that, where there is no indication of manufacture, methamphetamine levels of more than 15mcg in any 100 cm 2 sample area will make premises uninhabitable. 1

Are these premises uninhabitable?

The landlord provided a methamphetamine sampling report in evidence as part of its application. It submits that the results show the premises are uninhabitable because of methamphetamine contamination with the highest residue level being 51mcg.
The tenant said that he does not agree that the unit is uninhabitable because the methamphetamine testing he arranged gives results that are different from those of the landlord.
The tenant had not supplied his evidence before the hearing. The landlord agreed to email the tenant’s report to the Tribunal during the hearing. The tenant later also emailed this together with some additional evidence which I received after the hearing.
For completeness, I note that the landlord had not supplied its laboratory analysis report prior to the hearing so I requested and received this after the hearing.
I accept the sampling and laboratory reports provided by the landlord as reliable. Both the sampling company and the laboratory are International Accreditation New Zealand2 (IANZ) accredited organisations.
Nineteen samples were taken from the premises on 9 October 2024 and analysed individually (separately) by the laboratory.
The landlord’s sample results can be broken down as follows:- a. five results above 15mcg/100cm 2 - from the bathroom/laundry, upstairs hallway and bedroom two: 51mcg, 44mcg, 33mcg, 29mcg, and 24mcg; 1 See for example Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited v Donna Penberthy [2025] NZTT 5110710, Landlord v Marjorie Marcela Vega Ron [2024] NZTT 4993109. District Court decisions have endorsed Tenancy Tribunal decisions that accept the 15 microgram level as requiring remediation. See Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, Erne Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210. 2 The accreditation body of the Testing Laboratory Registration Council in New Zealand, an autonomous Crown entity established by the Testing Laboratory Registration Council Act 1972 and now operating under the Standards and Accreditation Act 2015. b. eleven results above 1.5mcg and below 15mcg/100cm 2 - from the kitchen, living area, front entry, bedroom one and the stairwell: 14.90mcg,
8mcg, 12.40mcg, 11.40mcg, 6.30mcg, 5.90mcg, 3.9mcg, 3.7mcg,
90mcg, 2.40mcg, 1.60mcg; and c. three results below 15mcg/100cm 2 .
The landlord’s sampling report includes an observation that the tenant appeared to have recently repainted nearly all surfaces inside the premises and that this, together with the presence of a lot of personal belongings, meant that access to preferred testing sites was extremely limited. The tenant told me he had only painted a few areas.
I also accept the sampling and laboratory reports provided by the tenant as reliable. The sampling does not appear to have been done by an IANZ accredited organisation 3 however the sampler and author of the report states that he has a NZQA qualification to undertake methamphetamine screening. The laboratory analysis report is from an IANZ accredited laboratory.
The tenant’s laboratory report confirms that it is a laboratory composite result from seven samples taken from 100cm 2 sample areas in the premises on 16 January 2025. One sample was taken from each of the kitchen, dining, living, both bedrooms, bathroom, and hallway.
A laboratory composite result is produced by the laboratory taking equal parts from each sample and combining these to create a new composite sample, which is then analysed. 4
The composite sample result is: a. 3.48mcg/100cm 2 of methamphetamine as an average of the seven samples, and b. 24.4mcg/100cm 2 as a “theoretical maximum” of methamphetamine.
The sampling report gives the following guidance: Interpreting Results This average result cannot be directly compared with the relevant guideline because it is an average of multiple sampling locations. The Theoretical Maximum is used to interpret a composite test result. It assesses the total amount of residue that could be present in any one sample, if all other samples had no detectable amounts of residue in them. The Theoretical Maximum should be interpreted as a “worst case scenario” - if it exceeds the allowable level specified for any one location in NZ 8510 then the samples should be retested to work out which (if any) of these samples are above the allowable level. 3 https://www.ianz.govt.nz/directory/ 4 This process is described in both the sampling and laboratory report provided by the tenant.
The average result of 3.48mcg/100cm 2 means that it is possible that none of the seven samples are more than 15mcg/100cm 2 .
However, it is also possible that one or more of the samples are greater than that level. For example, one sample could be 24.4mcg and the other six may be 0mcg.
My conclusion is that the results presented by the landlord justify its decision to terminate the tenancy on the basis the premises are uninhabitable due to methamphetamine residue of more than 15mcg/100cm 2 in three rooms of the house.
I do not agree with the tenant that his results prove otherwise. The seven samples were not individually tested so cannot be directly compared with the landlord’s samples. What they do show is that at least one of the seven samples must be above 15mcg. This is enough for me to conclude that the premises are uninhabitable.
In addition, the laboratory reports from both the landlord and tenant include positive results for amphetamine, ephedrine, and pseudoephedrine. These three compounds are commonly associated with some forms of methamphetamine manufacture.
The CSA report recommends that if there are indications that methamphetamine may have been manufactured or of these or other “precursor” chemicals, that the lower level of 1.5mcg/100cm 2 should be adopted as a precaution.
I consider there is sufficient indication of possible manufacture attempts in these premises to adopt the lower residue level of 1.5mcg/100cm 2 . The precursor substance results, the chemicals found by the police, and the repainting of the premises are all indicators.
The landlord’s sample results prove that the tenancy premises are uninhabitable.

Has the landlord validly terminated the tenancy?

The tenant said in the hearing that he did not know that the landlord wanted to end the tenancy and evict him. He said he had not received written notice from the landlord telling him this.
The landlord has provided a copy of its letter to the tenant dated 17 December 2024 which clearly says that the tenancy premises have been deemed uninhabitable due to methamphetamine contamination meaning it was no longer safe for him to remain at the property. The letter advises that the landlord is giving 7 days’ notice to end the tenancy and specifies an end date of Friday 27 December 2024.
The letter complies with all formal requirements in section 51(3) RTA which are that a notice terminating a tenancy must be in writing, identify the premises to which it relates, specify the date by which the tenant must vacate, if giving less than 90 days’ notice it must set out the reasons for the termination, and be signed by the person giving the notice.
The landlord told me that the written notice (letter) had been hand-delivered to the tenant’s address. I heard oral evidence from one of the landlord’s employees (“SN”) during the hearing. SN confirmed that she personally delivered the 7-day notice to the tenant’s premises on 17 December 2024. She said the tenant was at home and that he spoke to her through the window and asked her (and her colleague, the signatory to the letter) to leave the letter on a washing machine which was sitting outside his door. SN confirms the 7-day notice was left in that place.
The tenant agreed that he was at home that day and he did have this conversation with SN. He denies that the letter left on the washing machine was the termination notice.
I prefer SN’s evidence. My decision is that the landlord has validly served a notice of termination to the tenant.
The landlord has validly terminated the tenancy. Is there an option to decontaminate the premises and for the tenant to move back in afterwards?
The tenant has suggested that, if the landlord wants to decontaminate the premises, he can move out temporarily and move back in again afterwards.
The landlord says this is not possible as it is not known how long the decontamination process will take. It also points out that the tenant has many belongings in the unit all of which would also have to be decontaminated if he was to move back in.
I have agreed that the premises are uninhabitable due to methamphetamine contamination.
The landlord validly terminated the tenancy by notice less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are satisfied.
This means I must grant the landlord a possession order. Section 64 RTA makes it clear I have no other option.
The possession order is effective immediately. The landlord has 90 days within which it can apply for a warrant to enforce the possession order; s64(4) RTA. Suppression of name
The landlord is entitled to suppression of its name as it has succeeded in its application; s95A(1) RTA.
The landlord supports suppression of the tenant’s name. It says that it does not have evidence that the tenant has caused the methamphetamine contamination. On this basis, I also suppress the tenant’s name; s95A(4) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5181713 — Tenancy dispute at 23 Fred Woodward Place, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5181713 — Tenancy dispute at 23 Fred Woodward Place, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What has happened?

Are these premises uninhabitable?

Has the landlord validly terminated the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

What has happened?

Are these premises uninhabitable?

Has the landlord validly terminated the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions