Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5392377 — Tenancy dispute at 3 Miden Court, Judea, Tauranga 3110
Published 10 March 2026 · Application 5392377
Mixed / unclear
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Mixed / unclear
From published order
Location
Tauranga
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
R Merrett
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited is granted possession of the premises at 3 Miden Court, Judea, Tauranga 3110 at 11.59pm on Tuesday 24 March 2026.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. Ms De Bono represented the landlord.
- On 12 November 2025 the landlord gave Mr Howell a ‘7-day notice’ to end his tenancy. The reason for the notice was that the premises were uninhabitable because of methamphetamine contamination, and they required the premises to be vacant to enable the decontamination work to be completed.
- The law relevant to the issuing of a notice to end the tenancy due to uninhabitability is found in section 59A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). Section 59A provides that a landlord may end the tenancy by giving not less than 7 days notice if, as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant, the premises are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable.
- A methamphetamine detailed screening assessment was completed of the premises on 31 October 2025. Testing of the 11 samples taken from the premises showed three areas had levels of 16.7 μg/100cm² (bedroom 1), 17.1 μg/100cm² (the lounge), and 33.9 μg/100cm² (the kitchen). These levels are above the level 15 μg/100cm²) that is considered to be likely to give rise to adverse effects (as determined in the report by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, Methamphetamine Contamination in Residential Properties: Exposures, Risk Levels, and Interpretation of Standards). Testing of the other 8 samples also showed varying levels of contamination but all were below 15.1 μg/100cm².
- Mr Howell accepts that the methamphetamine contamination occurred during his tenancy. He said that he had a flatmate staying at the premises for a “few months” who smoked methamphetamine. He said that he told him to leave when he caught him smoking methamphetamine in the premises after he had warned him not to do so.
- I accept that it was Mr Howell’s flatmate that caused the methamphetamine contamination. However, smoking methamphetamine in the premises is a breach of the tenancy agreement and the Act and Mr Howell is responsible for the actions others who are at the premises with his permission.
- I am satisfied that the landlord was entitled to issue the 7 day notice to end Mr Howell’s tenancy. I find that the premises are so seriously damaged so as to be uninhabitable for the purposes of section 59A of the Act. The work required to decontaminate the premises is outlined in the October 2025 report and is extensive.
- I find particular support in my finding of uninhabitability due to methamphetamine contamination by the recent changes by Parliament found in section 59B of the Act. That section provides that a landlord may issue a 7 day notice to end a tenancy where testing establishes contamination in any part of the premises above the level prescribed in Regulations. If the level is above the prescribed level and the contamination has occurred as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement, the whole of the premises are considered uninhabitable. The relevant regulations are the Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026 and regulation 6 provides that 30 μg/100 cm 2 is the maximum inhabitable level of methamphetamine for premises. While the Regulations are not yet in force (they come into force on 16 April 2026), they provide support that a level over 30 μg/100 cm 2 is a level at which the premises become uninhabitable. I am also minded that had the landlord applied under section 59B of the Act after 16 April, they would have been entitled to an order enforcing the termination notice based simply on the readings found in the kitchen.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s2026, s59A, s59B
Property management
- ACCESSIBLE PROPERTIES NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5392377?
The tribunal order states: Accessible Properties New Zealand Limited is granted possession of the
How much money was awarded in case 5392377?
Verified claim lines are listed on this page.
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5392377?
The dispute type was not classified.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5392377?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13255397-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.