How much money was awarded in case 5294880?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5294880?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5294880?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12107909-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5294880?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5294880?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5294880?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12107909-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 110 Chadwick Road, Greerton, Tauranga Tenancy Tribunal Case 5294880 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5294880 about?

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

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Sharnie Rose Cumming at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 110 Chadwick Road, Greerton, Tauranga 3112 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at Midnight on Sunday 13 July 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr Brown advised that the property manager, who was previously acting, had recently resigned from that position and that he was appearing as a representative of the Trust which owns the property.
The tenancy agreement confirms that the property manager is acting as agent for the landlord. Both agent and owner are therefore included as landlord.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and as the tenancy has ended as a significant methamphetamine contamination has caused the property to be “uninhabitable” and a notice to end the tenancy has been served and the tenant has failed to vacate as required.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the tenant’s breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
Section 59B states that a landlord may give 7 days’ notice to end a tenancy (whether fixed term or periodic) if the premises are rendered uninhabitable by meth contamination exceeding the prescribed level and the contamination has occurred as a result of the tenant breaching the tenancy agreement.
Section 40 (2) (a) states that a tenant must not intentionally or carelessly damage or permit any other person to damage the premises they are renting.
Section 40 (2) (b) states that a tenant must not use or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
The use or possession of methamphetamine is an imprisonable offence; see the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
The evidence must therefore show that the tenant has caused or permitted a meth contamination to occur during the tenancy, that renders the premises uninhabitable.
The first requirement is that the meth contamination occurred during the tenancy.
The Courts have consistently held that pre tenancy testing showing that there was no meth contamination at the beginning of the tenancy is the starting point to a landlord establishing a claim for termination/compensation on the basis of meth contamination. Pre tenancy testing confirms no meth at start of tenancy.
The evidence clearly shows that the property was not contaminated with methamphetamine at the commencement of the tenancy. Pre-tenancy testing confirms that at 9:32 am on 4 July 2022, which is the day the tenancy commenced, the meth levels were less than 0.08 ug in each room sampled.
The tenant’s submission that it is possible the significant meth contamination, recently detected, occurred in the few hours she says the property was vacant after the testing and before she shifted in is not accepted, as it is simply implausible.
Her alternative submission that the landlord might have caused the contamination when assessing damage to the property with an insurance assessor in June 2025, is unsupported by any evidence and equally implausible.
The landlord said he had never used meth and certainly not in the brief time he was at the property assessing the water damage caused by a tap the tenant had left on.
I accept that it is likely the premises were not contaminated with meth at the beginning of the tenancy. Testing shows significant contamination has occurred during the tenancy.
Composite meth testing was carried out on 23 June 2025 by The Drug Detection Agency using a Hill Laboratories swab sampling kit. Surface sample wipes were used for each location sampled and taken by way of a wipe. Hill laboratory is an ISO 17025 IANZ accredited laboratory and their testing process is NIOSH 9111 compliant.
A minimum of one sample was taken from 5 high-use areas. The sampling sites were spread around the property to increase the likelihood of detecting methamphetamine throughout the entire property.
The testing report confirmed in its conclusion section that “The attached laboratory report confirms the presence of methamphetamine contamination. The Detected level is 75μg
The report recommended that due to the methamphetamine contamination at the property a detailed assessment was conducted.
The landlord applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy when the composite test result was received, and on 26 June also issued a 7 day notice to end the tenancy on 2 July 2025 as the premises were uninhabitable (section 59B RTA).
The detailed testing occurred on 27 June 2025. It confirmed that the meth levels are; Kitchen 28μg Lounge 5.6μg Garage/Laundry 6.3μg Toilet 7.2μg Bedroom one 49μg
The Recommendation was that decontamination work occur and the property should not be occupied while the decontamination work is underway.

Why Tenancy must be terminated?

The issue then becomes whether the detected meth contamination means the premises are “uninhabitable” as required by section 59.
“Uninhabitable” is not defined in the RTA but was considered by the Courts in claims arising out of the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquakes.
In Watkin v Brazier Property Investments Ltd [2012] DCR 186, Judge Kellar concluded that the meaning of habitable is very much dependent on context.
Therefore, “the term should be assessed in the light of prevailing conditions and expectations of the particular community at the particular time.”
There is ongoing uncertainty about the level of methamphetamine residue that renders them uninhabitable.
There is no standard set-in law as yet and the two most accepted sources of (non-legal) guidance are quite different in their recommendations.
A New Zealand Standards committee (approved and appointed under then Standards and Accreditation Act 2015) adopted a “maximum acceptable level” of methamphetamine of 1.5mcg/100cm2 for ‘high use areas’ (easily accessed and regularly used). NZS 8510:2017 applies from 29 June 2017.
Then, 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 Gluckman report makes a distinction between the risks of exposure to chemical residues in premises where methamphetamine has been previously manufactured as opposed to where it has been smoked/used. It concludes that, where there is no evidence of the manufacture of methamphetamine, exposure to residue levels on household surfaces of below 15mcg/100 cm2 “would be highly unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects”.
Where there is evidence suggesting possible manufacture of methamphetamine, both NZS 8510:2017 and the Gluckman report recommend remediation to the 1.5mcg level. The Gluckman report notes that methamphetamine levels over 30mcg/100cm2 are considered by forensic experts to signify that manufacture is likely to have taken place.
The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendations, and the District Court has consistently confirmed that it is open to the Tribunal to take this approach because of the lack of legislative regulation at present. See Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 and Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231.
Methamphetamine contamination of homes is an issue that society takes seriously, particularly when the levels of contamination are high. That view is reflected in the amendments to the RTA relating to methamphetamine contamination, and the intention of Parliament to set regulations in relation to contamination.
The Tribunal continues to be guided by the level set out in the Gluckman report.
The levels of contamination in these premises far exceed the Gluckman levels.
I consider that the levels are such that the premises are uninhabitable.
The landlord’s 7-day notice to terminate the tenancy is lawful and enforceable.
In addition, the evidence shows the contamination has occurred during the tenancy and therefore that the tenant has caused or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose causing extensive damage that now requires remediation.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy as the tenant has breached her obligations under the RTA as outlined. The breach is the unlawful action of causing or permitting the meth contamination and cannot be remedied. The consequence of the breach is the contamination which now requires extensive remediation work before the premises are safe to live in again.
The premises are uninhabitable until decontaminated. The tenancy must be ended for this decontamination to occur.
This order is issued to the parties by email. The tenant has until Sunday evening to retrieve her possessions and return the property to the landlord.
It is likely further landlord claims will follow, but they are to be filed and considered separately.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

The tenancy of Sharnie Rose Cumming at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 110 Chadwick Road, Greerton, Tauranga 3112 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at Midnight on Sunday 13 July 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Mr Brown advised that the property manager, who was previously acting, had recently resigned from that position and that he was appearing as a representative of the Trust which owns the property.

The tenancy agreement confirms that the property manager is acting as agent for the landlord. Both agent and owner are therefore included as landlord.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and as the tenancy has ended as a significant methamphetamine contamination has caused the property to be “uninhabitable” and a notice to end the tenancy has been served and the tenant has failed to vacate as required.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Where the tenant’s breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.

However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.

Section 59B states that a landlord may give 7 days’ notice to end a tenancy (whether fixed term or periodic) if the premises are rendered uninhabitable by meth contamination exceeding the prescribed level and the contamination has occurred as a result of the tenant breaching the tenancy agreement.

Section 40 (2) (a) states that a tenant must not intentionally or carelessly damage or permit any other person to damage the premises they are renting.

Section 40 (2) (b) states that a tenant must not use or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.

The use or possession of methamphetamine is an imprisonable offence; see the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

The evidence must therefore show that the tenant has caused or permitted a meth contamination to occur during the tenancy, that renders the premises uninhabitable.

The first requirement is that the meth contamination occurred during the tenancy.

The Courts have consistently held that pre tenancy testing showing that there was no meth contamination at the beginning of the tenancy is the starting point to a landlord establishing a claim for termination/compensation on the basis of meth contamination. Pre tenancy testing confirms no meth at start of tenancy.

The evidence clearly shows that the property was not contaminated with methamphetamine at the commencement of the tenancy. Pre-tenancy testing confirms that at 9:32 am on 4 July 2022, which is the day the tenancy commenced, the meth levels were less than 0.08 ug in each room sampled.

The tenant’s submission that it is possible the significant meth contamination, recently detected, occurred in the few hours she says the property was vacant after the testing and before she shifted in is not accepted, as it is simply implausible.

Her alternative submission that the landlord might have caused the contamination when assessing damage to the property with an insurance assessor in June 2025, is unsupported by any evidence and equally implausible.

The landlord said he had never used meth and certainly not in the brief time he was at the property assessing the water damage caused by a tap the tenant had left on.

I accept that it is likely the premises were not contaminated with meth at the beginning of the tenancy. Testing shows significant contamination has occurred during the tenancy.

Composite meth testing was carried out on 23 June 2025 by The Drug Detection Agency using a Hill Laboratories swab sampling kit. Surface sample wipes were used for each location sampled and taken by way of a wipe. Hill laboratory is an ISO 17025 IANZ accredited laboratory and their testing process is NIOSH 9111 compliant.

A minimum of one sample was taken from 5 high-use areas. The sampling sites were spread around the property to increase the likelihood of detecting methamphetamine throughout the entire property.

The testing report confirmed in its conclusion section that “The attached laboratory report confirms the presence of methamphetamine contamination. The Detected level is 75μg

The report recommended that due to the methamphetamine contamination at the property a detailed assessment was conducted.

The landlord applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy when the composite test result was received, and on 26 June also issued a 7 day notice to end the tenancy on 2 July 2025 as the premises were uninhabitable (section 59B RTA).

The detailed testing occurred on 27 June 2025. It confirmed that the meth levels are; Kitchen 28μg Lounge 5.6μg Garage/Laundry 6.3μg Toilet 7.2μg Bedroom one 49μg

The Recommendation was that decontamination work occur and the property should not be occupied while the decontamination work is underway.

Why Tenancy must be terminated?

The issue then becomes whether the detected meth contamination means the premises are “uninhabitable” as required by section 59.

“Uninhabitable” is not defined in the RTA but was considered by the Courts in claims arising out of the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquakes.

In Watkin v Brazier Property Investments Ltd [2012] DCR 186, Judge Kellar concluded that the meaning of habitable is very much dependent on context.

Therefore, “the term should be assessed in the light of prevailing conditions and expectations of the particular community at the particular time.”

There is ongoing uncertainty about the level of methamphetamine residue that renders them uninhabitable.

There is no standard set-in law as yet and the two most accepted sources of (non-legal) guidance are quite different in their recommendations.

A New Zealand Standards committee (approved and appointed under then Standards and Accreditation Act 2015) adopted a “maximum acceptable level” of methamphetamine of 1.5mcg/100cm2 for ‘high use areas’ (easily accessed and regularly used). NZS 8510:2017 applies from 29 June 2017.

Then, 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 Gluckman report makes a distinction between the risks of exposure to chemical residues in premises where methamphetamine has been previously manufactured as opposed to where it has been smoked/used. It concludes that, where there is no evidence of the manufacture of methamphetamine, exposure to residue levels on household surfaces of below 15mcg/100 cm2 “would be highly unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects”.

Where there is evidence suggesting possible manufacture of methamphetamine, both NZS 8510:2017 and the Gluckman report recommend remediation to the 1.5mcg level. The Gluckman report notes that methamphetamine levels over 30mcg/100cm2 are considered by forensic experts to signify that manufacture is likely to have taken place.

The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendations, and the District Court has consistently confirmed that it is open to the Tribunal to take this approach because of the lack of legislative regulation at present. See Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 and Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231.

Methamphetamine contamination of homes is an issue that society takes seriously, particularly when the levels of contamination are high. That view is reflected in the amendments to the RTA relating to methamphetamine contamination, and the intention of Parliament to set regulations in relation to contamination.

The Tribunal continues to be guided by the level set out in the Gluckman report.

The levels of contamination in these premises far exceed the Gluckman levels.

I consider that the levels are such that the premises are uninhabitable.

The landlord’s 7-day notice to terminate the tenancy is lawful and enforceable.

In addition, the evidence shows the contamination has occurred during the tenancy and therefore that the tenant has caused or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose causing extensive damage that now requires remediation.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy as the tenant has breached her obligations under the RTA as outlined. The breach is the unlawful action of causing or permitting the meth contamination and cannot be remedied. The consequence of the breach is the contamination which now requires extensive remediation work before the premises are safe to live in again.

The premises are uninhabitable until decontaminated. The tenancy must be ended for this decontamination to occur.

This order is issued to the parties by email. The tenant has until Sunday evening to retrieve her possessions and return the property to the landlord.

It is likely further landlord claims will follow, but they are to be filed and considered separately.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5294880 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 110 Chadwick Road, Greerton, Tauranga

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5294880 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 110 Chadwick Road, Greerton, Tauranga

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Why Tenancy must be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Why Tenancy must be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions