What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5439928 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5439928?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5439928?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5439928?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13147811-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5439928 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5439928?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5439928?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5439928?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13147811-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5439928 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video conference. The tenant did not join the hearing by video nor by telephoning the Tribunal in accordance with the process outlined in the notice of hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant received notice of the hearing and did not attend. Application for possession order
The landlord has applied for a possession order of the premises under s64 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) on the basis that the landlord has served a valid notice to terminate the tenancy under s59A(3) and (4); the tenancy has now terminated; and the tenant has not vacated the premises.
Section 59A provides: 59ATermination where breach renders premises uninhabitable (1)This section applies if, as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement (whether for a fixed-term tenancy or a periodic tenancy) by a party, the premises are destroyed or are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable. (2)If the tenant is not in breach, the rent abates. (3)The party who is not in breach may give notice to the other party terminating the tenancy. (4)When a landlord gives notice of termination under this section, the period of notice is not less than 7 days. (5)When a tenant gives notice of termination under this section, the period of notice is not less than 2 days. (6)This section does not apply in relation to damage that is contamination by a contaminant if regulations prescribe a relevant method of testing for, and a relevant maximum inhabitable level of, that contaminant (but see section 59B). (NB--It is noted that there are currently no regulations in force prescribing a relevant method of testing for, and a relevant maximum inhabitable level of, methamphetamine under s59B RTA.)
The landlord says that they had cause to suspect that the tenant was using methamphetamine at the premises and gave notice under s48(2)(ba) RTA to conduct testing for methamphetamine at the premises. The landlord says that the testing results showed that the premises were contaminated by methamphetamine to the extent that the premises are uninhabitable. They then issued a 7 day notice dated 29 January 2026 to terminate the tenancy under s59A (‘the termination notice”). The relevant parts of the notice stated:

DEAR TENANT

Recently, the landlord conducted a test for methamphetamine................ The result of the test for methamphetamine was positive and above the recommended level for human habitation of 15 μg/100cm² for the whole dwelling. The Tenancy Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation of 15μg/100cm² for human habitation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC4947. 1 In plain terms the dwelling is regarded as uninhabitable, and you are no longer permitted to reside there................. 1 This is a reference to the report by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposure, risk levels and interpretation of standards, 29 May 2018 (the Gluckman report) The Gluckman report concluded that, in the case of third-hand contact, exposure to methamphetamine at levels below 15μg/100cm² was unlikely to have an adverse effect and remediation to the 1.5μg/100cm² New Zealand Standard was only appropriate if there was reason to suspect manufacturing activity. In Full Real Circle Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, the District Court considered an appeal from a Tribunal decision which adopted the Gluckman report and stated at paragraph [36] “the best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.”

TAKE NOTICE

Because the dwelling is now uninhabitable the landlord hereby gives you seven (7) days’ notice to leave the rental property. You should make arrangements to leave the rental property as soon as possible but not longer than seven (7) days.”’

The landlord says that more than seven days has elapsed since the termination notice was served and they now seek a possession order from the Tribunal.
Before granting a possession order, the Tribunal must consider whether the tenancy has been lawfully terminated. In other words the validity of the termination notice must be established before a possession order can be made. The Court of Appeal 2 has confirmed that the Tribunal is not obliged to make a possession order if the termination was not lawful. The Tribunal must consider whether the landlord was entitled to possession under s64, which includes checking the validity of the notice relied upon. Validity of the termination notice
The basis for the termination notice is that the premises are uninhabitable due to methamphetamine contamination. The notice itself records that the landlord found methamphetamine at the premises “above the recommended level for human habitation of 15 μg/100cm² for the whole dwelling.” Therefore, the issue to determine is whether there is proof that the premises are uninhabitable.
The landlord produced copies of two reports detailing the results of the testing for methamphetamine conducted at the premises. The first report dated 10 December 2025 analysed the results of a composite test where 10 samples collected from the premises on 8 December 2025 were combined. The Theoretical Maximum (as if all methamphetamine residue was in one sample) was 16.9 μg/100cm² (micrograms per 100 square centimetres). However, composite testing only establishes the presence of methamphetamine. Further discrete testing of individual samples is required to establish the level of methamphetamine in each sample, and whether it exceeds the “safe level” promulgated by Gluckman and adopted in Full Circle Real Estate and subsequent District Court and Tribunal cases (the case law).
The second report dated 28 January 2025 analysed 20 individual samples taken from the premises (on a date not specified in the report). Of those samples, 16 samples were well below the New Zealand Standard of 1.5 μg/100cm² for which it is well accepted (by Gluckman and case law) that the levels are not a risk to human health requiring decontamination. The remaining 4 samples were also less than 15 μg/100cm², which again is below the “safe 2 Winther v Housing Corporation of New Zealand [2010] NZCA 601 at paragraphs [73-81] level” promulgated by Gluckman. Those readings expressed in μg/100cm² were as follows: Hallway a—4.1 Bedroom 1a—9.8 Bedroom 2a—2.8 Bathroom b—3.3
It follows that the premises have not been contaminated such as to cause an adverse risk to health and so as to require decontamination. If the contamination levels are under the “safe level” prescribed by Gluckman, it follows that the premises cannot be considered uninhabitable.
The statement in the termination notice that methamphetamine detected at the premises is “above the recommended level for human habitation of 15 μg/100cm² for the whole dwelling” is also incorrect and inaccurate.
First the levels detected in the discrete samples do not exceed 15 μg/100cm².
Secondly, the Gluckman report (and case law adopting Gluckman) does not state that the presence of methamphetamine above a level of 15 μg/100cm² means that the premises are not fit for human habitation. Gluckman makes a distinction between the risks of exposure to chemical residues in premises where methamphetamine has been previously manufactured as opposed to where it has been smoked. It concludes that, where there is no evidence of the manufacture of methamphetamine, exposure to residue levels on household surfaces of below 15 μg/100cm² “would be highly unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects” and that this level still incorporates a 30-fold safety buffer on a conservative estimate of risk.
Where there is evidence suggesting possible manufacture of methamphetamine, both the New Zealand Standard and the Gluckman report recommend remediation to the 1.5 μg/100cm² level. The Gluckman report notes that methamphetamine levels over 30 μg/100cm² are considered by forensic experts to signify that manufacture is likely to have taken place.
There was no evidence in this case to suggest that manufacturing of methamphetamine has occurred at the premises.
The High Court in Nesbit v Te Ahuru Mowai Ltd Partnership 3 recently made some comments about what might be required to prove that premises are “uninhabitable” due to methamphetamine contamination under s59A RTA. Justice Grice stated [44-48]: 3 Nesbit v Te Ahuru Mowai Ltd Partnership [2025] NZHC 2467 [44] In a case where premises are uninhabitable due to contamination it may well be that ss 59 or 59A apply. Either section requires proof that the premises are in fact uninhabitable due to contamination. [45] The Gluckman report suggests that exposure to methamphetamine levels below 15μg/100cm2 would be unlikely to give rise to any adverse health effects. It does not follow from the report that methamphetamine levels above 15μg/100cm2 are “uninhabitable”. However, Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga | The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development has made proposals suggesting that the “maximum acceptable level of contamination” for methamphetamine (the level above which a premises will be considered “contaminated” under the Act) should be 15μg/100cm2 and the “maximum inhabitable level” for methamphetamine (the level above which s 59B will be engaged) should be 30μg/100cm2. It acknowledges that commissioned advice from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research found there was insufficient evidence to be able to define a maximum inhabitable level for methamphetamine as “no evidence is available of severe health effects associated with third-hand methamphetamine exposure”. The Ministry concludes there is a “lack of scientific evidence” on what an uninhabitable level of methamphetamine was. And [47] In assessing whether or not premises are uninhabitable, in the absence of regulations concerning the levels of contamination which are deemed to make the premises uninhabitable, the proper approach is to undertake a fact specific inquiry under either ss 59 or 59A in accordance with the District Court authorities. Whether or not a premises is uninhabitable will depend on the nature of the damage, the safety risks presented by it, the nature of the property itself and its occupants. Also relevant to the assessment is the extent to which the relevant damage interferes with the functionality and use of the property. In addition, it may also be appropriate to take into account the kind of occupant of the property. For instance, elderly, disabled or child tenants may be more affected by contamination than others might be. [48] Consideration should also be given as to whether only part of the premises is only part of a property that is uninhabitable under s 59(4). For example, even a dining room may not prevent other parts of the premises being safely inhabited if the tenants were able to avoid using that room without that undermining their use of the property as envisaged in the tenancy agreement.
Given the current law and based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that the premises in this case are uninhabitable due to methamphetamine contamination. Therefore, the termination notice stating that the premises are uninhabitable is not correct, and the notice is invalid.
There is also another problem with the termination notice which states: “...the landlord hereby gives you seven (7) days’ notice to leave the rental property. You should make arrangements to leave the rental property as soon as possible but not longer than seven (7) days.”
As discussed at the hearing, the notice does specify the date that the tenancy ends and the tenant must vacate the premises. It says that the tenant must leave as soon as possible and no later than 7 days after the notice is given. That is incorrect and not in accordance with s59A(3) which states that the period of notice must be not less than 7 days. 7 days is the minimum not the maximum period.
S 59A does not specify the form of the notice and what must be included in it. However, the provisions of s51(3) RTA apply. S 51(3) provides that “every notice to terminate a tenancy” shall contain the information set out in that section which includes specifying the date that the tenant must vacate the premises.
Even had there been grounds to issue a notice under s59A, the form of the notice in this case is defective and I would have required the landlord to issue a new notice that complies with s51(3) RTA. Summary
In summary, for all the reasons set out above, I find that the termination notice issued by the landlord under s59A is invalid as to both the form of the notice and because the landlord has not proved that the premises are uninhabitable. The application must therefore be dismissed.
As the landlord has not succeeded with their claim, they are not entitled to suppression of their name and identifying details nor to reimbursement of the filing fee. Given, that the claim against the tenant has not been proved, it is appropriate that the Tribunal suppress the tenant name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5439928 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5439928 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

DEAR TENANT

TAKE NOTICE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

DEAR TENANT

TAKE NOTICE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions