What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5302735 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5302735?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5302735?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5302735?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12655716-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5302735 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5302735?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5302735?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5302735?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12655716-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 81, 744 Great North Road, Western Springs, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5302735 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the phone hearing held on the 3 November 2025.
The tenant lived in the one-bedroom apartment that was the tenancy premises from 2010 to 2016. The landlord ended the tenancy by giving the tenant a 90 day notice and the Tribunal granted possession to the landlord pursuant to an order dated 14 November 2016. 1
The tenant says that the landlord wrongly accused him of contaminating the premises with methamphetamine, when he did not do so. The tenant says that this accusation together with the termination of his tenancy in 2016 rendered him homeless and he has struggled for many years to find suitable accommodation. He says that as a result of the methamphetamine contamination many of his 1 TT 4052579. goods were disposed of, and he had no place to live at the end of the tenancy, he lost many of his prized belongings because he had nowhere to store them.
The tenant is seeking $100,000 being the Tribunal’s jurisdictional limit for the following claims: a. That the landlord interfered with his quiet enjoyment by falsely accused him of contaminating the premises with methamphetamine and by allowing homeless people to come into his building. b. That the landlord disposed of his goods.
The landlord disputes the claims and claims that it has a defence to the claims because they are barred by the Limitation Act 2010 because they have been brought more than six years after the tenancy has ended.
The Tribunal can only make orders and hear claims only if it is satisfied that the Limitation Act does not apply. 2
A party seeking monetary claims has six years from the date that the event occurred to bring the claim to the Tribunal.
The tenant’s claims date back to the 2016, this means that the tenant was required to file his claims by November 2022.
I note that in the possession order dated 14 November 2016, the Adjudicator recorded that the tenant told him that he had claims he wished to make, so it appears that the tenant knew at that date he wanted to make claims but did not. When I asked him why, he said that it was because he was homeless, had no fixed address tor receive mail at, and that when he found a more appropriate place to live, COVID occurred and that made it more difficult.
It is clear that when the tenant was living at the property, the landlord had the property tested for methamphetamine, there were no ingoing tests, and the property had had various tenants in the tenancy from the 1990’s to 2010 when this tenancy began. The methamphetamine tests returned results which showed the property was contaminated with results above 0.5μg/100cm 2 , the highest reading was 8.3μg/100cm 2 . At the time the Ministry of Health had a guidelines which recommended that results above Results above 0.5μg/100cm 2 may be injurious to health. The tenant was charged the testing and decontamination costs of $10,369.00 by his landlord.
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 2 See s77(1) RTA. that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process
None of the testing done at the tenant’s flat indicated manufacture of methamphetamine. None of the results were above 15μg/100cm 2.
In 2018 following the Gluckman Report the landlord paid compensation to the tenant of $5,700.00 for his goods which had been disposed of during the decontamination and reversed the charged amounts of $10,369.00. The landlord says that the tenant had not actually paid any amount off the charges, so this was simply an accounting transaction.
I consider that the position on the levels requiring remediation, being 2 years after the date the tenancy ended, would have constituted a late knowledge date as that term is defined in the s11 Limitation Act, however that would have only given the tenant 3 years after that date., in other words it would have still been within the 6 years. Even if I am wrong and the tenant had six years from the 2018 report, in other words till 2024, the application is still outside of time.
The landlord has successfully defended the claims as being outside of time and therefore the tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the phone hearing held on the 3 November 2025.

The tenant lived in the one-bedroom apartment that was the tenancy premises from 2010 to 2016. The landlord ended the tenancy by giving the tenant a 90 day notice and the Tribunal granted possession to the landlord pursuant to an order dated 14 November 2016. 1

The tenant says that the landlord wrongly accused him of contaminating the premises with methamphetamine, when he did not do so. The tenant says that this accusation together with the termination of his tenancy in 2016 rendered him homeless and he has struggled for many years to find suitable accommodation. He says that as a result of the methamphetamine contamination many of his 1 TT 4052579. goods were disposed of, and he had no place to live at the end of the tenancy, he lost many of his prized belongings because he had nowhere to store them.

The tenant is seeking $100,000 being the Tribunal’s jurisdictional limit for the following claims: a. That the landlord interfered with his quiet enjoyment by falsely accused him of contaminating the premises with methamphetamine and by allowing homeless people to come into his building. b. That the landlord disposed of his goods.

The landlord disputes the claims and claims that it has a defence to the claims because they are barred by the Limitation Act 2010 because they have been brought more than six years after the tenancy has ended.

The Tribunal can only make orders and hear claims only if it is satisfied that the Limitation Act does not apply. 2

A party seeking monetary claims has six years from the date that the event occurred to bring the claim to the Tribunal.

The tenant’s claims date back to the 2016, this means that the tenant was required to file his claims by November 2022.

I note that in the possession order dated 14 November 2016, the Adjudicator recorded that the tenant told him that he had claims he wished to make, so it appears that the tenant knew at that date he wanted to make claims but did not. When I asked him why, he said that it was because he was homeless, had no fixed address tor receive mail at, and that when he found a more appropriate place to live, COVID occurred and that made it more difficult.

It is clear that when the tenant was living at the property, the landlord had the property tested for methamphetamine, there were no ingoing tests, and the property had had various tenants in the tenancy from the 1990’s to 2010 when this tenancy began. The methamphetamine tests returned results which showed the property was contaminated with results above 0.5μg/100cm 2 , the highest reading was 8.3μg/100cm 2 . At the time the Ministry of Health had a guidelines which recommended that results above Results above 0.5μg/100cm 2 may be injurious to health. The tenant was charged the testing and decontamination costs of $10,369.00 by his landlord.

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 2 See s77(1) RTA. that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process

None of the testing done at the tenant’s flat indicated manufacture of methamphetamine. None of the results were above 15μg/100cm 2.

In 2018 following the Gluckman Report the landlord paid compensation to the tenant of $5,700.00 for his goods which had been disposed of during the decontamination and reversed the charged amounts of $10,369.00. The landlord says that the tenant had not actually paid any amount off the charges, so this was simply an accounting transaction.

I consider that the position on the levels requiring remediation, being 2 years after the date the tenancy ended, would have constituted a late knowledge date as that term is defined in the s11 Limitation Act, however that would have only given the tenant 3 years after that date., in other words it would have still been within the 6 years. Even if I am wrong and the tenant had six years from the 2018 report, in other words till 2024, the application is still outside of time.

The landlord has successfully defended the claims as being outside of time and therefore the tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5302735 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 81, 744 Great North Road, Western Springs,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5302735 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 81, 744 Great North Road, Western Springs,

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