Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5420933 — Cleanliness
Decided 27 Feb 2026 · Published 27 Feb 2026 · Application 5420933
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
J Northwood
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
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant & Landlord name and identifying details including the tenancy address.
- The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy due to methamphetamine contamination, is dismissed, even though the property maybe presently uninhabitable.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The landlord is seeking to terminate the Tenancy due to methamphetamine (“meth”) testing at the property resulted in an overall “theoretical maximum methamphetamine level” of contamination of 39 micrograms per 100cm. After composite testing of 6 areas in the property the following results were found: -Sample 1- Lounge - 0.89 (meth) -Sample 2 – Kitchen (extractor fan) – 35.0 (meth) -Sample 3 – Bathroom – 0.1 (meth) -Sample 4 – Bedroom 1 – 0.88 (meth) -Sample 5- Lounge 2 – 1.22 (meth) -Sample 6 – Laundry – 0.16 (meth)
- The landlord claims that at this level of contamination the property is no longer safe for habitation.
- The tenant opposes the landlord application and claims the following: -Despite the landlord claiming “regular” meth testing of the property, no tests had been carried out for 18 months. -Furthermore, there has never been any testing of the extractor fans in the kitchen until December 2025. -Disputes that the property is uninhabitable according to the relevant guidance from Government agencies.
- In this case the Tribunal must carefully consider both the level of methamphetamine detected and the evidence linking the contamination to the current tenant.
- The key legal principles I must consider are: Burden of Proof and Pre-Tenancy Testing
- As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the landlord) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.”
- That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
- As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case.
- If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
- The landlord must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the contamination occurred during the current tenancy and was caused by the tenant or their guests.
- I accept that before and throughout the tenancy the landlord has carried out meth testing at the property. Briefly the following are composite testing results before and during the tenancy: -May 2022 (before commencement of the tenancy) – level 0.4 (meth) -November 2022 – 5.17 (meth) -June 2023 – 10.5 (meth) -June 2024 – 14.2 (meth) -December 2025 – 39 (meth)
- The tenancy commenced on 7 June 2022. I acknowledge that the landlord is correct that the level of meth found in the composite testing has been increasing over the period of the tenancy.
- As the results from May 2022 to June 2024 were below 15mg, no individual testing samples were taken. The significance of this is that there was no confirmed testing of the kitchen extractor fan prior to December 2025. No pre – testing of extractor fan:
- Where there is no pre-tenancy testing in the area where the highest reading was found (e.g., the kitchen extractor fan), it is generally not possible to establish that the contamination level found on the extractor fan occurred during the current tenancy.
- It is of interest to note, and relevant for my consideration, that the levels throughout the rest of the individual sample test sites were low. The only significant level was the extractor fan.
- The principle is well established in decisions such as Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak 1 and Landlord v Reardon 2 , which confirm that the absence of pre-tenancy testing is often fatal to a landlord’s claim.
- While a reading of 35 micrograms per 100cm² (on the kitchen extractor fan) is well above the Gluckman threshold and indicates significant contamination, the Tribunal cannot assume the tenant is responsible without evidence that the contamination occurred during their tenancy.
- Section 56(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows for termination if the tenant has used the premises for an unlawful purpose (such as methamphetamine use).
- The methamphetamine test result of 35 micrograms per 100cm² is significantly above the level considered safe for habitation. While the tenant submits that no pre-tenancy testing was carried out in the area where the highest level was 1 ErenLimited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak NZDC 15210 2 Landlord v Reardon NZTT 4322786 found, and denies responsibility for that contamination, the absence of pre- tenancy testing means it cannot be established on the balance of probabilities that the contamination occurred during this tenancy.
- The Tribunal cannot make findings of liability, or order termination, based on speculation or assumption. The landlord’s opposition to any decision against them does not alter the Tribunal’s obligation to apply the law and decide the case on the evidence. The Tribunal’s role is to ensure a fair and just outcome. Habitability
- Regardless of fault, if the property is contaminated above the accepted threshold, it may be unsafe for habitation, and the Tribunal may need to consider termination under section 59(1).
- Current Guidance on Safe Levels: a. The most authoritative guidance for habitability is the Gluckman Report, which states that methamphetamine levels below 15 micrograms per 100 cm² do not pose a health risk and do not require remediation. b. The New Zealand Standard (NZS 8510:2017) sets a lower threshold (1.5 micrograms per 100 cm²), but the courts and Tribunal have consistently preferred the Gluckman level unless there is specific evidence of manufacture or heavy use.
- Level Detected: a. A level of 35 micrograms per 100 cm² is well above both the Gluckman and NZS thresholds. b. At this level, the property is considered contaminated and unsafe for habitation according to both standards. Landlord’s Obligations:
- Under section 45(1)(c) RTA, the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair, and comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety.
- Allowing a tenant to remain in a property with methamphetamine contamination at this level would likely breach these obligations.
- While the property is currently contaminated and may be uninhabitable, termination of the tenancy is not automatic in these circumstances. The law does not require the Tribunal to end a tenancy simply because the premises are contaminated., especially where the landlord cannot prove that it was the tenants fault.
- The landlord has the option to remedy the issue by undertaking decontamination and any necessary repairs to restore the property to a habitable standard.
- The landlord expressed the concern about the cost of the decontamination for a social housing provider. However, the only area to be decontaminated is the kitchen extractor fan.
- If the kitchen fan was decontaminated, then the tenancy can continue once the property is safe and compliant with health and safety standards. This approach is consistent with the principle that termination is a last resort, and that practical remedies should be pursued where possible.
- Where I have found that the landlord has not proven that the tenant is responsible for the meth contamination found in the kitchen extractor fan, and the landlord can remedy the issue, I do not consider that termination is required in this case.
- I am dismissing the landlord’s application. Suppression
- The Applicant is a social housing provider and seeks suppression of their name and identifying details as well as the tenants. That suppression extends to the address of the property. Under section 95A of the RTA the Tribunal may order that the names and identifying details not be published if it is likely to cause undue hardship.
- I am granting suppression for the names of both parties and the tenancy address.