What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5379977?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Richard Te Amo at Unit/Flat 2, 15 Hilda Street, Fenton Park,

How much money was awarded in case 5379977?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379977?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379977?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12771077-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5379977?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Richard Te Amo at Unit/Flat 2, 15 Hilda Street, Fenton Park,

How much money was awarded in case 5379977?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379977?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379977?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12771077-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 15 Hilda Street, Fenton Park, Rotorua 3010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5379977 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat 2, 15 Hilda Street, Fenton Park, Rotorua 3010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5379977 — 14-day notice | TenantCheck

Order

The tenancy of Richard Te Amo at Unit/Flat 2, 15 Hilda Street, Fenton Park, Rotorua 3010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Airedale Residential Limited As Agent For Viv Avery Nicola Wilkinson, at 5pm Friday 30 January 2026.
By mutual agreement, the tenant may end the tenancy before 30 January 2026 by providing the landlord with no less than two working days’ notice to terminate.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. Ms Nicola Wilkinson represented the landlord. Ms Maria Te Amo, Richard’s mother, was pre-approved as his representative. Richard is a vulnerable person and has active agency support. Two of his support workers were present and their input was useful and appreciated.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

What occurred?

The tenancy commenced on 10 April 2025.
A baseline line methamphetamine test at the time confirmed no methamphetamine residue with a composite test returning a theoretical maximum of 0.28 μg.
A transfer request for medical reasons was requested by the tenant and as part of that process the landlord conducted a second composite test on 24 October 2025. This test returned elevated results, this time returning a theoretical maximum of 0.28 μg. The medical reason was resolved by treatment and is no longer a problem.
A meeting between the landlord and tenant, and his support, took place on 3 November 2025 without any agreed way forward.
This landlord application for termination was lodged the same day, seeking termination under s 56 (termination for breach) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) for use of the tenant of the premises, or permitting the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose (s 40(2)(b) RTA).
The landlord is a provider of social housing and this premises is made available for that purpose via a separate agreement between the landlord here and owners. The owners are aware of the situation and this application.
I provided at the hearing an overview of the current stance of the Tribunal regarding methamphetamine contamination and unsafe levels.
The New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties (“NZS8510:2017”) provides industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and clean-up of methamphetamine contamination in houses. NZS8510:2017 was released on 29 June 2017. The standard adopts a single level of 1.5μg/100cm² (1.5 micrograms of methamphetamine per 100 square centimetres of surface sampled) that ‘high use areas’ of affected properties should be decontaminated to, regardless of whether the properties were involved in the production or use of methamphetamine. Consider high use areas as those areas that can be easily accessed by the occupants.
On 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman (the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor at that time) determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (See ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018.
His report concluded that in the absence of other evidence of manufacture, any levels below 15μg/100cm² are highly unlikely to present adverse effects therefore there should be no need for remediation. Where there is evidence of manufacture the NZS8510:2017 standard is appropriate (noting there is no suggestion of manufacturing during this tenancy).
In 2019 there was a judgement in the District Court which dismissed an appeal after the Tribunal adopted the Gluckman Report to determine whether the tenant had caused damage to the premises or permitted any other person to do so (Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947).
Finally, I consider further validating are the 2019 comments of the Court of Appeal in Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38 where, in paragraph [16], with reference to the Gluckman Report, the decision stated: “We acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health and safety concerns.”
Just recently, the government has confirmed the Gluckman levels to apply (see Housing and Urban Development explanation here). Regulations are expected to be in force in 2026, but an exact date has not been set yet. Essentially, when methamphetamine residue levels are above 15μg/100cm2 (micrograms per hundred square centimetres), the property is considered contaminated and needs to be decontaminated.
So, the current situation is the premises are not considered unsafe. However, the evidence does support contamination due to methamphetamine use since the start of the tenancy.
The tenant has used, or permitted to be used, methamphetamine in the premises during the tenancy. This is in breach of s 40(2)(b), RTA as it is unlawful to use premises, or allow them to be used, for the purpose of consuming methamphetamine which is a class A controlled drug (s 3A, 7(1)(a) and Schedule 1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975).

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 s 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant to remedy the breach, although the Tribunal may consider whether a warning should have been given when determining whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.
There are two types of obligation on a tenant: positive covenants and negative covenants. Positive covenants are things the tenant is required to do, such as paying rent. Negative covenants are things that a tenant must not do, such as breaching the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours.
Breach of a positive covenant can be remedied by requiring the tenant to do the thing they were supposed to do, such as paying the unpaid rent.
The situation is not as straightforward with breach of a negative covenant, as it may not be possible to undo the thing the tenant did which they should not have done. In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered whether breach of s 48(4)(b) RTA (refusal to allow entry) was capable of remedy: [46] Section 48(4)(b) imposes a negative obligation on the tenant. Several cases have held that breach of a negative covenant in a tenancy agreement is not capable of remedy in terms of s56(1)(b). The breach irremediably arises when the specified failure occurs. [47] It is not always the case, however, that breach of a negative covenant is incapable of remedy. Whether a negative covenant is capable of remedy will depend on the nature of the breach, and when viewed within the context of s56(1)(b)(i), whether the harm that might be caused by the breach can be effectively remedied within a reasonable period of not less than 14 days.
It follows that a breach of a negative covenant would be capable of remedy where the effect of the breach can be remedied. Where however the breach, or the harmful effect of the breach, is serious, it may not be capable of remedy. Indications of likely future repeat risk need to also be considered.

Would it be inequitable not to terminate?

In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. Consideration
Based on the submissions, it is considered more than likely that Richard allowed someone in the premises who consumed, and contaminated, the premises.
Richard lives independently but has active support. He acknowledged he has been approached and allowed others into the premises. His ability to screen and manage such visitors (or “randoms” as he described them) is not helped by the premises layout. It is one of a block of six units. There is no fencing of note, and the driveway is open to the street, as well the most direct access to the units by occupants and visitors. His living area opens onto the driveway.
While the level of methamphetamine evidenced is below the threshold to trigger remediation as a requirement at this time, further contamination or other issues from uncontrolled access cannot be reasonably discounted. The challenge is twofold – the configuration and openness of the premises, and Richard’s affable nature means I consider it would be inequitable to decline the landlord request for termination.
The termination date has been mutually agreed as the end of January, reflecting the current motivations of Richard and his support to manage access with a lower risk of further contamination to such a level to trigger a need for remediation. If this occurs and costly remediation is later required, tenant liability may well result.
The order provides an early exit provision primarily for Richard’s benefit. It is hoped this will enable him to obtain a more suitable home from here before the end of January. However, to be clear, if that has not occurred before 30 January 2026, the tenancy terminates and possession returns to the landlord then.

Order

The tenancy of Richard Te Amo at Unit/Flat 2, 15 Hilda Street, Fenton Park, Rotorua 3010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Airedale Residential Limited As Agent For Viv Avery Nicola Wilkinson, at 5pm Friday 30 January 2026.
By mutual agreement, the tenant may end the tenancy before 30 January 2026 by providing the landlord with no less than two working days’ notice to terminate.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. Ms Nicola Wilkinson represented the landlord. Ms Maria Te Amo, Richard’s mother, was pre-approved as his representative. Richard is a vulnerable person and has active agency support. Two of his support workers were present and their input was useful and appreciated.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

What occurred?

The tenancy commenced on 10 April 2025.
A baseline line methamphetamine test at the time confirmed no methamphetamine residue with a composite test returning a theoretical maximum of 0.28 μg.
A transfer request for medical reasons was requested by the tenant and as part of that process the landlord conducted a second composite test on 24 October 2025. This test returned elevated results, this time returning a theoretical maximum of 0.28 μg. The medical reason was resolved by treatment and is no longer a problem.
A meeting between the landlord and tenant, and his support, took place on 3 November 2025 without any agreed way forward.
This landlord application for termination was lodged the same day, seeking termination under s 56 (termination for breach) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) for use of the tenant of the premises, or permitting the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose (s 40(2)(b) RTA).
The landlord is a provider of social housing and this premises is made available for that purpose via a separate agreement between the landlord here and owners. The owners are aware of the situation and this application.
I provided at the hearing an overview of the current stance of the Tribunal regarding methamphetamine contamination and unsafe levels.
The New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties (“NZS8510:2017”) provides industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and clean-up of methamphetamine contamination in houses. NZS8510:2017 was released on 29 June 2017. The standard adopts a single level of 1.5μg/100cm² (1.5 micrograms of methamphetamine per 100 square centimetres of surface sampled) that ‘high use areas’ of affected properties should be decontaminated to, regardless of whether the properties were involved in the production or use of methamphetamine. Consider high use areas as those areas that can be easily accessed by the occupants.
On 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman (the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor at that time) determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (See ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018.
His report concluded that in the absence of other evidence of manufacture, any levels below 15μg/100cm² are highly unlikely to present adverse effects therefore there should be no need for remediation. Where there is evidence of manufacture the NZS8510:2017 standard is appropriate (noting there is no suggestion of manufacturing during this tenancy).
In 2019 there was a judgement in the District Court which dismissed an appeal after the Tribunal adopted the Gluckman Report to determine whether the tenant had caused damage to the premises or permitted any other person to do so (Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947).
Finally, I consider further validating are the 2019 comments of the Court of Appeal in Smith v Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited [2019] NZCA 38 where, in paragraph [16], with reference to the Gluckman Report, the decision stated: “We acknowledge that the testing in this case yielded results now considered not to raise any health and safety concerns.”
Just recently, the government has confirmed the Gluckman levels to apply (see Housing and Urban Development explanation here). Regulations are expected to be in force in 2026, but an exact date has not been set yet. Essentially, when methamphetamine residue levels are above 15μg/100cm2 (micrograms per hundred square centimetres), the property is considered contaminated and needs to be decontaminated.
So, the current situation is the premises are not considered unsafe. However, the evidence does support contamination due to methamphetamine use since the start of the tenancy.
The tenant has used, or permitted to be used, methamphetamine in the premises during the tenancy. This is in breach of s 40(2)(b), RTA as it is unlawful to use premises, or allow them to be used, for the purpose of consuming methamphetamine which is a class A controlled drug (s 3A, 7(1)(a) and Schedule 1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975).

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 s 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant to remedy the breach, although the Tribunal may consider whether a warning should have been given when determining whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.
There are two types of obligation on a tenant: positive covenants and negative covenants. Positive covenants are things the tenant is required to do, such as paying rent. Negative covenants are things that a tenant must not do, such as breaching the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours.
Breach of a positive covenant can be remedied by requiring the tenant to do the thing they were supposed to do, such as paying the unpaid rent.
The situation is not as straightforward with breach of a negative covenant, as it may not be possible to undo the thing the tenant did which they should not have done. In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered whether breach of s 48(4)(b) RTA (refusal to allow entry) was capable of remedy: [46] Section 48(4)(b) imposes a negative obligation on the tenant. Several cases have held that breach of a negative covenant in a tenancy agreement is not capable of remedy in terms of s56(1)(b). The breach irremediably arises when the specified failure occurs. [47] It is not always the case, however, that breach of a negative covenant is incapable of remedy. Whether a negative covenant is capable of remedy will depend on the nature of the breach, and when viewed within the context of s56(1)(b)(i), whether the harm that might be caused by the breach can be effectively remedied within a reasonable period of not less than 14 days.
It follows that a breach of a negative covenant would be capable of remedy where the effect of the breach can be remedied. Where however the breach, or the harmful effect of the breach, is serious, it may not be capable of remedy. Indications of likely future repeat risk need to also be considered.

Would it be inequitable not to terminate?

In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. Consideration
Based on the submissions, it is considered more than likely that Richard allowed someone in the premises who consumed, and contaminated, the premises.
Richard lives independently but has active support. He acknowledged he has been approached and allowed others into the premises. His ability to screen and manage such visitors (or “randoms” as he described them) is not helped by the premises layout. It is one of a block of six units. There is no fencing of note, and the driveway is open to the street, as well the most direct access to the units by occupants and visitors. His living area opens onto the driveway.
While the level of methamphetamine evidenced is below the threshold to trigger remediation as a requirement at this time, further contamination or other issues from uncontrolled access cannot be reasonably discounted. The challenge is twofold – the configuration and openness of the premises, and Richard’s affable nature means I consider it would be inequitable to decline the landlord request for termination.
The termination date has been mutually agreed as the end of January, reflecting the current motivations of Richard and his support to manage access with a lower risk of further contamination to such a level to trigger a need for remediation. If this occurs and costly remediation is later required, tenant liability may well result.
The order provides an early exit provision primarily for Richard’s benefit. It is hoped this will enable him to obtain a more suitable home from here before the end of January. However, to be clear, if that has not occurred before 30 January 2026, the tenancy terminates and possession returns to the landlord then.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379977 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 2, 15 Hilda Street, Fenton Park, Rotorua 3010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379977 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 2, 15 Hilda Street, Fenton Park, Rotorua 3010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What occurred?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Would it be inequitable not to terminate?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What occurred?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Would it be inequitable not to terminate?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions