Tenancy Terminated Due to Severe Meth Contamination
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ended a tenant's lease because the rental property was heavily contaminated with methamphetamine, rendering it unsafe and requiring extensive cleanup.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant's tenancy can be terminated for breach of obligations if the premises are contaminated with methamphetamine and the damage is not capable of remedy.
📖 What the law says
This section allows the Tenancy Tribunal to end a tenancy if one party has broken the tenancy agreement or the Act. If the problem can be fixed, the party who complained must have given the other party a notice to fix it within at least 10 working days, and the other party failed to do so.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The tenancy was terminated due to methamphetamine contamination.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal terminated the tenancy of a tenant whose rental property was severely contaminated with methamphetamine, making the premises unsuitable for habitation and beyond repair without significant remediation efforts.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5235531 1
[2025] NZTT 5235531
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT ROTORUA | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The tenancy of [NAME] at [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] is terminated and possession is granted to [COMPANY] immediately.
Reasons:
1. The Landlord attended the hearing.
2. The Landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the Tenant’s obligations.
Should the tenancy be terminated?
3. 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: s 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
4. Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the Landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5235531 2
5. However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the Landlord to have warned the Tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
6. The Landlord claims the Tenant has breached their obligations as follows:
The individual meth level has gone from 3.47ug (01/03/2024) to 24.1ug (28/03/2025)
7. I have reviewed the tests completed before and during the tenancy (March 2025).
8. Recent testing has shown the lounge ceiling to have high levels of methamphetamine contamination, well above the Gluckman levels of 15μg/100cm², indicating damage to the premises.
9. There is no evidence to suggest the roof was painted prior to the tenancy, and I am satisfied, the contamination has occurred, more likely than not, during the current tenancy.
10. The breach is not capable of remedy because the premises have been used for an unlawful purpose – namely, the consumption of an illicit, dangerous drug – and the premises have been damaged and are likely to require significant remediation efforts, which the Tenant has not undertaken in the time since the damage became evidence.
11. Against that background, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
12. I apologise to the Landlord for the delay in finalising this Order.
[NAME]
26 May 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5235531 3
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5235531 4
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The landlord's claim for tenancy termination was accepted because the tenant breached their obligations.
- The court found that methamphetamine contamination levels in the lounge ceiling were high, indicating damage to the property.
- The contamination likely occurred during the current tenancy, as there was no evidence of prior painting.
- The breach was not fixable because the property was used for an illegal purpose and required significant cleanup.
- It would be unfair to not end the tenancy given the property damage and the tenant's failure to fix it.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal decided to terminate the tenant's tenancy due to severe methamphetamine contamination of the rental property.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant's tenancy should be terminated because the rental property was contaminated with methamphetamine.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to terminate the tenancy because the contamination was severe and the premises were damaged, making the breach incapable of remedy.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 56(1) was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the premises had been contaminated with methamphetamine, making the tenancy untenable.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation might face termination of their tenancy if their rental property becomes contaminated with methamphetamine and the damage is severe.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included test results showing high levels of methamphetamine contamination in the rental property.