What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5225591 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5225591?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5225591?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5225591?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11781988-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5225591 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5225591?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5225591?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5225591?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11781988-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

27 Wikaraka Street, Ngongotaha, Rotorua 3010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5225591 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
The landlord is seeking termination of the tenancy due to the property needing to be decontaminated of methamphetamine residue. Burden of proof
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. One of these standards is that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. That means the party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the burden of proof. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging the is 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.
If the claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed. Current law around methamphetamine contamination as damage
In June 2017, Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017 which recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture of methamphetamine.
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 and exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect.
The 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.
The Tribunal has endorsed the Gluckman recommendations and has applied them for several years. The District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 approved the Tribunal’s approach.
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 NZS8510:2017 has not been adopted into law the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg/100cm2 standard.
More recently 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 there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report. The landlord’s claim
The applicant claims the tenant or somebody at the property with the tenant’s consent, has used methamphetamine and caused a high level of methamphetamine contamination. The applicant is seeking termination of the tenancy to allow the property to be decontaminated to below 1.5μg/100cm2.
The landlord’s application referred to termination under section 59(B)(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”). This section refers to maximum prescribed levels for a contaminant.
Section 2 of the RTA defines “prescribed” as “prescribed by this Act or by regulations made under this Act”.
Section 138C of the RTA provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but no regulations have yet been made in relation to methamphetamine levels.
The landlord conducted a pre-tenancy baseline test on 9 December 2022. The result of this test was a potential maximum level of 0.08μg/100cm2. This is a negligible amount.
After this test was taken the premises were locked up and left empty over the Christmas period.
The tenancy began 21 February 2023.
A second methamphetamine test was undertaken by a testing company called Active Testing Solutions on 28 March 2025. Samples were taken from ten different places and returned a range of levels, the highest being
5μg/100cm2 on the kitchen windowsill, and the lowest being 2.02μg/100cm2 in the lounge.
The report from the testing company at page 16, mentions both the NZ Standards recommended levels, and the Gluckman level.
At page 4 of the same report, Active Testing Solutions states “The property is not currently considered safe to be inhabited.” This conclusion is not consistent with Sir Peter Gluckman’s analysis, nor the law as it has been applied in New Zealand Courts and Tribunals since. Summary
The levels of methamphetamine contamination with regards to the two tests undertaken at this property, are not disputed by the tenant.
There is no currently prescribed level for methamphetamine in the RTA or its regulations.
There is no suggestion or evidence presented today that the premises has been used in the manufacture of methamphetamine.
The levels recorded show that the property has become contaminated by with methamphetamine during this tenancy, but the levels are still within a safe range as established in the Gluckman Report. That is to say, the levels do not amount to damage. (See [2021] NZTT 4306118 Taumaranui, and [2022] NZTT 4322786.)
The tenant denies using methamphetamine herself, but stated that other people, who had been there with her consent while she was away, may have used methamphetamine.
The landlord’s application today, does not establish a means for the Tribunal to terminate this tenancy.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.

The landlord is seeking termination of the tenancy due to the property needing to be decontaminated of methamphetamine residue. Burden of proof

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. One of these standards is that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. That means the party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the burden of proof. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging the is 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.

If the claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed. Current law around methamphetamine contamination as damage

In June 2017, Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017 which recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture of methamphetamine.

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 and exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect.

The 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.

The Tribunal has endorsed the Gluckman recommendations and has applied them for several years. The District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 approved the Tribunal’s approach.

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 NZS8510:2017 has not been adopted into law the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg/100cm2 standard.

More recently 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 there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report. The landlord’s claim

The applicant claims the tenant or somebody at the property with the tenant’s consent, has used methamphetamine and caused a high level of methamphetamine contamination. The applicant is seeking termination of the tenancy to allow the property to be decontaminated to below 1.5μg/100cm2.

The landlord’s application referred to termination under section 59(B)(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”). This section refers to maximum prescribed levels for a contaminant.

Section 2 of the RTA defines “prescribed” as “prescribed by this Act or by regulations made under this Act”.

Section 138C of the RTA provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but no regulations have yet been made in relation to methamphetamine levels.

The landlord conducted a pre-tenancy baseline test on 9 December 2022. The result of this test was a potential maximum level of 0.08μg/100cm2. This is a negligible amount.

After this test was taken the premises were locked up and left empty over the Christmas period.

The tenancy began 21 February 2023.

A second methamphetamine test was undertaken by a testing company called Active Testing Solutions on 28 March 2025. Samples were taken from ten different places and returned a range of levels, the highest being

5μg/100cm2 on the kitchen windowsill, and the lowest being 2.02μg/100cm2 in the lounge.

The report from the testing company at page 16, mentions both the NZ Standards recommended levels, and the Gluckman level.

At page 4 of the same report, Active Testing Solutions states “The property is not currently considered safe to be inhabited.” This conclusion is not consistent with Sir Peter Gluckman’s analysis, nor the law as it has been applied in New Zealand Courts and Tribunals since. Summary

The levels of methamphetamine contamination with regards to the two tests undertaken at this property, are not disputed by the tenant.

There is no currently prescribed level for methamphetamine in the RTA or its regulations.

There is no suggestion or evidence presented today that the premises has been used in the manufacture of methamphetamine.

The levels recorded show that the property has become contaminated by with methamphetamine during this tenancy, but the levels are still within a safe range as established in the Gluckman Report. That is to say, the levels do not amount to damage. (See [2021] NZTT 4306118 Taumaranui, and [2022] NZTT 4322786.)

The tenant denies using methamphetamine herself, but stated that other people, who had been there with her consent while she was away, may have used methamphetamine.

The landlord’s application today, does not establish a means for the Tribunal to terminate this tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5225591 — Tenancy dispute at 27 Wikaraka Street, Ngongotaha, Rotorua 3010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5225591 — Tenancy dispute at 27 Wikaraka Street, Ngongotaha, Rotorua 3010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions