What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5380605 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 5380605?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5380605?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5380605?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13185787-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5380605 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 5380605?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5380605?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5380605?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13185787-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5380605 — Smoke alarms

Order

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

Reasons

On 4 November 2025 the landlords applied for a possession order based on a ‘7- day’ termination notice issued on 29 November 2025. The notice was issued pursuant to section 59B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). The landlords also claim compensation (the insurance excess payable) for remedying methamphetamine contamination, and exemplary damages on the basis that the tenant has used or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. They claim that the tenant, or others at the premises with his permission, used and/or manufactured methamphetamine in the premises.
Later that same day (4 November) the tenant filed a cross application disputing the validity of the notice. His application is essentially a defence to the landlords’ claims and does not disclose any independent cause of action. His cross application is therefore dismissed on that basis.
The applications first came before me, by way of video conference, on 18 November 2025 when it was adjourned because there was insufficient time allocated to hear the applications. Both parties attended that hearing. Ms Phillips and Mr Curtis represented the landlords. At that hearing the tenant denied using or manufacturing methamphetamine in the premises or permitting any other person to do so.
The applications came back before me today. Ms Phillips and Mr Curtis attended the hearing, but the tenant did not attend (although I understand he arrived at the Courts soon after the hearing was concluded).

Should a possession order be made?

Section 59B of the Act entitles the landlord to give not less than 7 days’ notice of termination of the tenancy if testing of the premises, in accordance with a prescribed method, establishes contamination by a contaminant at a level above a relevant maximum inhabitable level prescribed for that contaminant. However, regulations which set out the prescribed testing method and the maximum contaminant level are not yet in force (it is expected that they will be enforce in the middle of this year). This means that the notice issued by the landlords to terminate the tenancy is invalid.
The application for a possession order based on the notice is therefore dismissed. Has the landlord established that the tenant is responsible for the methamphetamine contamination?
The premises were tested for methamphetamine on 16 October 2025. The Screening Assessment Report completed by All Clear records levels of methamphetamine contamination ranging from 8.7 μg/100cm2 (bathroom window frame to 130 μg/100cm2 (living room door). Of the 13 areas tested all but one exceeded the recommended ‘safe’ level of 15 μg/100cm².
While no methamphetamine tests were completed before this tenancy commenced (on 13 January 2024), the landlords claim that the contamination occurred during this tenancy because samples taken on 22 October 2025 from items installed in the tenancy after it commenced also tested positive for methamphetamine. In particular: new smoke alarms were installed in the hall, living room, and sleepout on 17 October 2025. Ms Phillips and Mr Curtis said that the tenant painted the interior walls in early 2025; and installed a heat pump in the garage and put new laminate on the kitchen bench and cupboards in mid- 2025. The All Clear report records levels of methamphetamine contamination on the three new smoke alarms ranging from 0.26 μg/100cm2 (sleepout) to 0.63 μg/100cm2 (living room); the garage heat pump had a reading of 0.09 μg/100cm2; and the bench top reading was 0.14 μg/100cm2.
I am not satisfied that the landlords have discharged their onus to prove that it was more likely than not that the methamphetamine contamination found at the premises occurred during this tenancy. The tenant denies using or manufacturing methamphetamine in the premises or knowing of anyone else, who was at the premises with his permission, who used it while at the premises. As mentioned no pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing was completed and there was no other evidence of methamphetamine use or concerns expressed by the property manager during the tenancy. Ms Phillips said, at today’s hearing, that there were “red flags” when she completed a routine inspection that prompted her to recommend having the premises tested for methamphetamine (although I note the written evidence suggests that it was tested on the request of the owner’s new insurers). These red flags were that the tenant was “animated” and acting “strange” and there were security cameras in the garage. She also said that neighbours told her that there were a lot of people coming and going. However, none of these are sufficient to support a finding of methamphetamine use or manufacture by the tenant.
I do not consider that the small levels of contamination found on the smoke alarms, the garage heat pump, and kitchen bench top are sufficient to support the landlords’ claim that the contamination elsewhere in the premises occurred during the tenancy. These items could have been contaminated by the contractor installing the smoke alarms or transferred from existing contamination in the property, particularly given the very low levels detected on these items.
The claim for methamphetamine damage and exemplary damages is therefore dismissed. Suppression
The tenant applied for a suppression order in his application.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The tenant has been wholly successful in his defence to the landlords’ claims and the limited exceptions set out in section 95A do not apply. I therefore order that his name and identifying details be suppressed.

Reasons

On 4 November 2025 the landlords applied for a possession order based on a ‘7- day’ termination notice issued on 29 November 2025. The notice was issued pursuant to section 59B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). The landlords also claim compensation (the insurance excess payable) for remedying methamphetamine contamination, and exemplary damages on the basis that the tenant has used or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. They claim that the tenant, or others at the premises with his permission, used and/or manufactured methamphetamine in the premises.

Later that same day (4 November) the tenant filed a cross application disputing the validity of the notice. His application is essentially a defence to the landlords’ claims and does not disclose any independent cause of action. His cross application is therefore dismissed on that basis.

The applications first came before me, by way of video conference, on 18 November 2025 when it was adjourned because there was insufficient time allocated to hear the applications. Both parties attended that hearing. Ms Phillips and Mr Curtis represented the landlords. At that hearing the tenant denied using or manufacturing methamphetamine in the premises or permitting any other person to do so.

The applications came back before me today. Ms Phillips and Mr Curtis attended the hearing, but the tenant did not attend (although I understand he arrived at the Courts soon after the hearing was concluded).

Should a possession order be made?

Section 59B of the Act entitles the landlord to give not less than 7 days’ notice of termination of the tenancy if testing of the premises, in accordance with a prescribed method, establishes contamination by a contaminant at a level above a relevant maximum inhabitable level prescribed for that contaminant. However, regulations which set out the prescribed testing method and the maximum contaminant level are not yet in force (it is expected that they will be enforce in the middle of this year). This means that the notice issued by the landlords to terminate the tenancy is invalid.

The application for a possession order based on the notice is therefore dismissed. Has the landlord established that the tenant is responsible for the methamphetamine contamination?

The premises were tested for methamphetamine on 16 October 2025. The Screening Assessment Report completed by All Clear records levels of methamphetamine contamination ranging from 8.7 μg/100cm2 (bathroom window frame to 130 μg/100cm2 (living room door). Of the 13 areas tested all but one exceeded the recommended ‘safe’ level of 15 μg/100cm².

While no methamphetamine tests were completed before this tenancy commenced (on 13 January 2024), the landlords claim that the contamination occurred during this tenancy because samples taken on 22 October 2025 from items installed in the tenancy after it commenced also tested positive for methamphetamine. In particular: new smoke alarms were installed in the hall, living room, and sleepout on 17 October 2025. Ms Phillips and Mr Curtis said that the tenant painted the interior walls in early 2025; and installed a heat pump in the garage and put new laminate on the kitchen bench and cupboards in mid- 2025. The All Clear report records levels of methamphetamine contamination on the three new smoke alarms ranging from 0.26 μg/100cm2 (sleepout) to 0.63 μg/100cm2 (living room); the garage heat pump had a reading of 0.09 μg/100cm2; and the bench top reading was 0.14 μg/100cm2.

I am not satisfied that the landlords have discharged their onus to prove that it was more likely than not that the methamphetamine contamination found at the premises occurred during this tenancy. The tenant denies using or manufacturing methamphetamine in the premises or knowing of anyone else, who was at the premises with his permission, who used it while at the premises. As mentioned no pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing was completed and there was no other evidence of methamphetamine use or concerns expressed by the property manager during the tenancy. Ms Phillips said, at today’s hearing, that there were “red flags” when she completed a routine inspection that prompted her to recommend having the premises tested for methamphetamine (although I note the written evidence suggests that it was tested on the request of the owner’s new insurers). These red flags were that the tenant was “animated” and acting “strange” and there were security cameras in the garage. She also said that neighbours told her that there were a lot of people coming and going. However, none of these are sufficient to support a finding of methamphetamine use or manufacture by the tenant.

I do not consider that the small levels of contamination found on the smoke alarms, the garage heat pump, and kitchen bench top are sufficient to support the landlords’ claim that the contamination elsewhere in the premises occurred during the tenancy. These items could have been contaminated by the contractor installing the smoke alarms or transferred from existing contamination in the property, particularly given the very low levels detected on these items.

The claim for methamphetamine damage and exemplary damages is therefore dismissed. Suppression

The tenant applied for a suppression order in his application.

Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).

The tenant has been wholly successful in his defence to the landlords’ claims and the limited exceptions set out in section 95A do not apply. I therefore order that his name and identifying details be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5380605 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5380605 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a possession order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should a possession order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions