What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5200731 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 5200731?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5200731?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5200731?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12337794-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5200731 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 5200731?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5200731?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5200731?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12337794-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5200731 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
The landlord and the tenant’s claims are not proven and therefore dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was held on the 20 August 2025. [The landlord’s representative’s] attended for the landlord. The tenant and her representative [The tenant’s representative] attended.
The premises is a 4-bedroom, double storied home with attached garage. It is situated down a long driveway it shares with a house out the front. It is bordered by forested parkland on its rear boundary.
At the beginning of the tenancy the landlord did not conduct any methamphetamine testing. The property had been lived in by previous tenants for six months prior, and the owner had lived in the property for 10 years before that.
The tenant lived in the property with her two teenage children and partner. On the day that the tenant moved in in June 2024 the tenant who was pregnant with twins at the time, went into premature labour and gave birth to her twins. Whilst the twins were born early, they were healthy, but stayed 4 weeks in the hospital. The tenant also was in hospital for a week.
From June to November the tenancy was uneventful. The landlord received no complaints about how the tenant was living in the property and conducted an inspection in which disclosed no issues.
In mid-November the neighbours started complaining about the tenant to the landlord. They complained that there were people coming and going from the property at odd hours of the day and night. They said that there were instances of antisocial behaviour such as yelling at 3am and that the tenant’s partner drove his motorbike/ scooter down the drive and road in a way that caused them concern. The landlords say that there were also issues with dogs barking, that people were using the parkway to access the tenant’s home, that there was a hum of the rangehood extraction fan all night and that there were lights on all night as well. The landlord received complaints from at least 3 neighbours.
The tenant denies behaving in an antisocial manner and says that some of the complaints have innocent explanations; that the lights were on at odd hours because she had twin babies that were on 2-3 hourly feeds, that the hum was not from the rangehood but from the heat pump unit, which was on at night to keep her room, where her babies slept, at a constant temperature.
The tenant says that there were a lot of people visiting the house, that is because a number of health professionals visited, family and friends and her teenage children’s friends also visited. She said this explains the difference in ages and appearances of people visiting.
She said that her sister helped her a lot, and it was her dogs that were at the house. The tenant says that the dogs did not stay there but rather visited when her sister visited.
The tenant accepts that her partner did have a scooter and bike and may have driven that noisily, but she told him not to do that after [The landlord’s representative] mentioned it to her, and he didn’t after that.
The tenant says that in November new occupants moved into a house a few doors away in the same street, these occupants started acting antisocially and it was those people, not her partner who drove loud noisy vehicles. She said that she did not know these occupants, but she suspects that any antisocial behaviour in the street was attributable to that household not hers.
As a result of the numerous neighbours’ complaints the landlord told the tenant it would be conducting methamphetamine testing at the property. The tests were conducted on the 2 December 2024 and the results came back:
Each party blames the other for the methamphetamine contamination. The landlord says that the tenant contaminated the property during her tenancy. The tenant says that she did not use or manufacture methamphetamine at the property and that the landlord has rented her a property that was contaminated.
The key question to be determined is when did the property become contaminated with methamphetamine? The law regarding methamphetamine contamination.
In respect of the landlord’s claim for damage to the premises by methamphetamine contamination, the landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.
Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.
There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5 μg/100cm2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm2 for limited use areas.
In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.
The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.
The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.
In Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.
Therefore, the Tribunal has continued to use the level of 15μg/100cm 2 as being the level where decontamination is necessary.
The District Court in Eren Limited v Louise Martin [2021] NZDC 15210 [3 August 2021] has also warned that in the absence of other evidence it will be difficult for a landlord to make out a claim that the tenant contaminated the premises when there was no testing for methamphetamine completed at the beginning of the tenancy. The court said: However, the significant problem for this claim is that there is no evidence of any methamphetamine testing carried out at the start of this tenancy. If there had been such testing and it revealed no methamphetamine, then clearly the methamphetamine residue that was found at the end of this tenancy could only have occurred during the tenancy and could only have occurred by either the tenants using methamphetamine or permitting others to use methamphetamine inside the house. The lack of methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy significantly weakens the circumstantial case against the tenants to the point where it is not possible to conclude on the balance of probabilities that it was the tenants who were responsible for the methamphetamine residue located at the premises at the end of their tenancy. Analysis.
The landlord accepts that there were no incoming methamphetamine tests, it instead relies on other circumstantial evidence to prove its case. This includes: a. Statements from neighbours who saw a number of people coming to and from the property, some of whom were carrying ‘liquids’. b. Statements from neighbours who say that the rangehood fan was on all night. The landlord says that the fan had one of the highest readings and that the level of the readings was indicative of manufacture. The landlord says that the rangehood would have been on all night to ventilate the property. c. Antisocial behaviour at the property including police visits. d. That the people who visited the property were of different ages, and some were skinny and appeared agitated. The neighbours want the landlord to draw the inference that the people visiting are drug addicts. e. That neighbour believed that the tenant and her family were leaving items at the back gate at the rear of the property, for passersby to pick up. f. That on the day of the testing at midday, when [The landlord’s representative] attended the property all the windows were open and there was a strong smell of cleaning products. g. That the level and extent of the methamphetamine contamination, means that it is unlikely that the methamphetamine has been on the surfaces for some time, as it would have been removed from cleaning. h. That a social worker who contracted [The landlord’s representative] after he gave noticed told [The landlord’s representative] that the tenant’s partner from was a family who had drug connections. i. That the dogs at the property were only allowed out at certain time. The landlord says that this was to ward off anyone who might have been coming to the property whilst methamphetamine was being manufactured. j. That a visitor to the home backed into the fence. k. That the presence of amphetamine in the test results shows that it is more likely that manufacture occurred at the property.
I have considered all the evidence and am not satisfied that the evidence meets the evidential burden that it was the tenant who contaminated the premises by using or manufacturing methamphetamine at the property. I say this for the following reasons: a. There were no tests done before the tenancy. Therefore, I cannot be certain when the property became contaminated. There was no fixture or fitting put in during the tenancy which could be tested and none of the tenant’s belongings were asked to be tested. b. The witnesses gave statements but did not attend the hearing, therefore they could not be questioned on what they had seen. I put very little weight on the statements made by the neighbours’ because that evidence is untested. For example, I could not ask the witness, what type of liquids did you see? Why was the appearance of the visitors a concern for you, how often did you see people coming and going, why did you think it was the rangehood fan that was running? I am also concerned that the three neighbours who made complaints to the landlord appear to be the same three neighbours who were in a Facebook messenger group with one another, and it may have been the sharing of the information that allowed the neighbours to make nefarious inferences for ordinary and innocent occurrences. c. Most of the occurrences that the neighbours refer to could be explained away, such as the rangehood being the heat pump outside unit, and the lights being on at odd hours because there were newborn babies in the house. d. The Police, when responding to the landlord’s official information request said that they had no records of ever having attended the property during the tenancy. e. There was no evidence that corroborated the neighbours’ evidence of what they had seen such as CCTV footage. f. The landlord did not provide any scientific research that showed me that methamphetamine contamination diminished on its own overtime and what the rates of decontamination would be. I therefore cannot say when the methamphetamine got on the surfaces it was found on. I have been previously told by methamphetamine decontamination experts in other cases I have determined that unless methamphetamine residue is cleaned or painted over, it will remain on a surface. g. Some of the testing points were in hard-to-reach places that may not have been cleaned, even in extensive between tenancy cleaning. h. The day of the testing was a warm day in December. I do not think it unusual to have the windows open at midday on such a day. i. I also accept that most tenants would do some cleaning before the landlord visited. j. The social worker was not called as a witness and her evidence could not be tested. Hearsay evidence that a person in the house has a family member with a drugs connection is not evidence of a person using drugs or manufacturing drugs at the property. k. The amphetamine levels are concerning, but do not tell me anything about when the contamination occurred. l. The tenant had numerous in-home visits from health professionals and social workers over the tenancy. No- one ever reported any concerns about drug use or that they had seen drugs or drug paraphernalia at the property.
The landlord’s claim the tenant contaminated the premises therefore fails and is dismissed. The tenant’s claims.
The tenant has claimed that the landlord rented her contaminated premises. The tenant has the burden of proving this claim. This means that the tenant must prove on the balance of probabilities that the premises were contaminated before she was the tenant.
The tenant does not ‘win’ her claim simply because I have found that the landlord failed to prove that she contaminated the premises during the tenant’s tenancy.
The tenant raised that the tenancy agreement (signed by the property manager for the landlord) on the 21 June 2024) was conditional on the landlord obtaining an ingoing methamphetamine report. It said: Drug Test – Results Pending I/We agree that this tenancy agreement is conditional on the Landlord testing the property for methamphetamine and/or other illegal substances prior to the commencement of the tenancy and possession being given and taken by the Tenant. Should the results show the presence of methamphetamine and/or other illegal substances on any part of the property above the maximum acceptable level of exposure (15 μg/100 cm2) reported by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman in Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards (for methamphetamine) and/or the applicable government guidelines (for other illegal substances) then the Tenant agrees that the tenancy shall not proceed, this agreement will be deemed to be null and void, and the Tenant shall not have any right or claim against the Landlord in connection with this agreement.
The tenant submits that she concluded that the landlord had completed methamphetamine testing before the tenancy started and that it had come back as clear before the tenancy started and had come back clear.
The tenant is effectively arguing equitable estoppel.
Equitable estoppel occurs when one person makes a clear and unequivocal statement or assurance to the other party that is intended to affect the tenancy relationship and be acted upon and the other party relies on the promise or assurance to their detriment.
I consider the special condition drug testing clause was a clear and unequivocal statement that the property would be tested, and that the tenancy would not proceed in the event that the property was found to be contaminated.
However, I am not satisfied that the tenant did in fact rely on this statement. The tenant never asked to see the methamphetamine testing results, nor did she make any inquiries about the methamphetamine testing at any stage before the landlord tested in December.
Having considered the evidence, I cannot conclude with any probability when or who contaminated the premises. The absence of testing at the beginning of the tenancy makes it difficult to reach any conclusion with the sufficient level of probability. In other words, whilst it is plausible that the tenant contaminated the premises, and whilst it is plausible the premises were contaminated before the tenancy, I cannot determine with any probability which one was more likely than the other.
The tenant’s claim that the landlord rented her a contaminated premises is not proven and therefore dismissed.
The tenant claims that the landlord should not have given notice under s59A RTA because the property was not uninhabitable, and the landlord breached s 60AA by giving the notice.
Whilst Parliament has not yet determined the levels of contamination which would make the property uninhabitable under s59B RTA , it would be disingenuous for the Tribunal to find that a property that is contaminated throughout (almost every room had high levels of contamination) in levels that exceed 15μg/100cm 2 (which is the level at which the Gluckman report considers may become injurious to health) should continue to be able to be lived in by the tenant and her family, especially her two young babies.
I therefore find that the property was uninhabitable, and it was appropriate for the landlord to give notice to terminate the tenancy.
S59A is a notice to terminate a tenancy when the tenant has caused the property to become uninhabitable. S59 is when the property becomes uninhabitable not through the fault of either a landlord or tenant but for some other reason, such as a flood or earthquake.
I have found the tenant did not cause the contamination, therefore the tenant should not have been given a notice pursuant to s59A.
Section 60AA says: A landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate to the tenant or apply or purport to apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy knowing that they are not entitled, under this Act, to give the notice or to make the application.
I am not satisfied that the landlord breached s60AA RTA because at the time that they gave the tenant notice they had a genuine belief that the tenant caused the damage. I do not consider that they had any ill intention and did not ‘know that they were not entitled’. I accept the evidence given at the hearing that with levels that high they did not want the tenants living in the property as they were concerned that it would be injurious to the tenant’s and her family’s health. I do not consider that the form of notice- s59A RTA, being incorrect, should mean that the landlord should be held to be at fault. The purpose of s59, 59A and 59B is that tenants do not live in homes that are unfit to be lived in.
The tenant’s claims under that the breach notice was incorrectly given fails and there was no breach of s60AA RTA.
In saying that, I acknowledge and accept that the timing of the notice and the circumstances were extremely difficult for the tenant and her family and that it effectively rendered the tenant and her family homeless, which was very distressing for them. Filing fee and name suppression.
As neither party has been successful in their claim then I do not make any award of costs.
I suppress the name of the tenant and the landlord. The tenant has found it difficult to find alternative place to live and given that I have found that she is not responsible for the methamphetamine contamination I consider that her interest outweighs the public interest. The tenant is allowed to show potential landlords this order if she wishes.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5200731 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5200731 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions