VadeLab
AllowedTenancy Tribunal·

Tenant Ordered to Vacate Premises Due to Methamphetamine Contamination

Case No. [2026] NZTT 5501183

📌 In brief

In this case, the Tenancy Tribunal ordered a tenant to leave contaminated premises and pay damages after failing to comply with a notice to terminate the tenancy. The decision emphasises the legal obligations of tenants when faced with methamphetamine contamination above safe levels.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant must vacate premises on termination of a tenancy if contamination levels exceed prescribed limits, unless the contaminated area is remote and inconsequential.

Topics

methamphetamine contaminationtermination of tenancy

Provisions

Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 59BResidential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026

📖 Technical summary

The Tenancy Tribunal granted possession to the landlord and awarded damages for breach of tenancy agreement.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tenancy Tribunal granted possession to the landlord and awarded damages for breach of tenancy agreement, finding that the tenant must vacate premises on termination due to methamphetamine contamination exceeding prescribed limits.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5501183 1

[2026] NZTT 5501183

TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA

APPLICANT: [redacted]

Landlord

RESPONDENT: [redacted]

Tenant

TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

ORDER

1. [RESPONDENT] must pay [APPELLANT] $428.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

2. [APPELLANT] is granted possession of the premises at [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] immediately.

Description Landlord Tenant Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Exemplary Damages $400.00 Total award $428.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord $428.00

Reasons:

1. The landlord attended the remote hearing.

2. The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link or by telephone. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given to the tenant.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5501183 2

3. The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.

4. Testing for methamphetamine contamination was carried out by the landlord.

5. Section 59B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides;

59B Termination where regulations prescribe testing methods and maximum inhabitable level of contamination

(1) This section applies if testing in accordance with a relevant prescribed method establishes contamination by a contaminant, in any part of the premises, at a level that is above a relevant maximum inhabitable level prescribed for that contaminant.

(2) If the contamination has occurred as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement (whether for a fixed-term tenancy or a periodic tenancy),—

(a) the whole of the premises is treated as uninhabitable; and (b) if the tenant is not in breach, the rent abates; and (c) the party who is not in breach may give notice to the other party

terminating the tenancy.

(3) If the contamination has occurred otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement (whether for a fixed-term tenancy or a periodic tenancy), then, unless subsection (4) applies,—

(a) the whole of the premises is treated as uninhabitable; and (b) the rent abates; and (c) either party may give notice to the other terminating the tenancy.

(4) However, for the purposes of subsection (3), if the only part of the premises that is established to be contaminated above the maximum inhabitable level is a remote and inconsequential part of the premises (see subsection (8)),—

(a) the rent abates accordingly; and (b) either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy.

(5) On an application under subsection (4)(b), the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to decontaminate the premises or (as the case may require) to require the tenant to continue with the tenancy albeit at a reduced rent.

(6) Where a landlord gives notice of termination under this section, the period of notice is not less than 7 days.

(7) Where a tenant gives notice of termination under this section, the period of notice is not less than 2 days.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5501183 3

(8) In this section, a part of the premises is remote and inconsequential if— (a) it is physically located away from, or physically closed off to, the rest of the premises in a way that is likely to prevent the spread of the contaminant to the rest of the premises (or is capable of being, and, after contamination is established, is, physically removed from or physically closed off to the rest of the premises in a way that is likely to prevent that spread); and (b) the rest of the premises can reasonably be used, without that part, as residential premises under the tenancy agreement.

6. Samples were obtained from the premises on 23 April 2026.

7. Testing of the samples was conducted by [NAME] in accordance with the Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026 (“the Regulations”), which came into force on 16 April 2026.

8. The test results show some levels of methamphetamine above the prescribed maximum inhabitable level of 30 micrograms per 100cm2 (all results referred to in this order are per 100cm2). That level being prescribed in the Regulations.

9. The results showed levels of 34 micrograms in the bedroom, 57 in the living area and 82 in the kitchen. All test results were positive for methamphetamine residue, but some were below the prescribed maximum of 30.

10. The landlord claims that the contamination has occurred other than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement. (s.59B (3) RTA).There is no allegation by the landlord that this tenant has used methamphetamine at the premises.

11. Section 59B RTA provides that in those circumstances, a landlord may give a notice to terminate the tenancy, except where the contaminated area of the premises is an “remote and inconsequential” part of the premises, as that term is defined above.

12. The premises are a small one-bedroom unit. There is also a kitchen, living room, laundry and a bathroom. The total area is slightly over 30m2. The three areas showing contamination above the maximum inhabitable level of 30 micrograms are the three larger rooms. I am not persuaded on the evidence that the contaminated areas are “remote and inconsequential.”

13. Section 59B(3) RTA provides that where the contaminated areas are not remote and inconsequential, either party may give notice to terminate the tenancy.

14. Where the party giving the notice is the landlord, the period of notice must be no less than 7 days (s.59B(6) RTA).

15. The landlord gave the tenant a notice to terminate the tenancy. The notice is dated 29 April 2026 and required the tenant to leave the premises by no later than 11.30 pm on 11 May 2026.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5501183 4

16. The landlord went to the premises on 12 May 2026 to take photos. The tenant was still residing at the premises.

17. The landlord went to the premises again on 26 May 2026. The tenant’s car was parked at the unit and the tenant’s belongings remained.

18. I find on the evidence that the tenant has not vacated the premises.

19. Possession is granted to the landlord as it is less than 90 days after the date when the tenancy terminated (s.64 RTA)

20. [APPELLANT] claims the tenant did not vacate the premises on 11 May 2026, the date the tenancy ended.

21. A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

22. Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

23. The tenant remains at the premises. I find they have committed an unlawful act.

24. Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

25. The tenant received the notice to terminate the tenancy from the landlord. The tenant was aware that the notice required him to vacate. His ongoing failure to vacate can only be considered an intentional act. It is in the best interest of the landlord, the tenant (for health reasons, the premises being contaminated) and tenants generally to comply with notices to terminate a tenancy.

26. Having reviewed the evidence, I consider that an award at the lower end of the scale remains appropriate. I am not aware of any previous orders against this tenant for similar breaches. The tenant is ordered to pay exemplary damages of $400.00.

27. As [APPELLANT] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5501183 5

S Young

28 May 2026

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5501183 6

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, or the failure to make an order, where the amount in dispute on appeal is

less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work, or the failure to make an order, where the value of the

work in dispute on appeal is 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/

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5501183 7

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:

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The landlord tested the premises for methamphetamine contamination according to the regulations.
  • The contamination levels exceeded the prescribed maximum inhabitable level in multiple rooms.
  • The contaminated areas were not deemed "remote and inconsequential.
  • The tenant did not vacate the premises by the specified date despite receiving the notice to terminate the tenancy.
  • The tenant's ongoing presence after the notice was considered an intentional unlawful act.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The tenant did not provide any evidence or argument that the contaminated areas were "remote and inconsequential.
  • The tenant did not present any reason or excuse for failing to vacate the premises by the required date.
  • The tenant did not contest the calculation of exemplary damages based on their failure to comply with the notice.
  • The tenant did not challenge the landlord's right to possession of the premises under the Residential Tenancies Act.
  • The tenant did not attend the hearing, thus failing to present any defense or counterarguments.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tenancy Tribunal granted possession to the landlord and awarded damages for breach of tenancy agreement.

Who was involved?

A tenant who failed to vacate contaminated premises after receiving a notice from the landlord, and the landlord seeking possession.

How did the court decide, and why?

The Tribunal found that the tenant must leave upon termination due to contamination levels exceeding prescribed limits, as per Section 59B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 59B and Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The tenant's failure to vacate after receiving a notice of termination due to contamination levels exceeding safe limits.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

For the landlord, as they were granted possession and awarded damages.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Tenants must vacate contaminated premises upon receiving notice of termination to avoid legal consequences.

What evidence or documents mattered?

Test results showing contamination levels above the prescribed maximum inhabitable level, and the notice given by the landlord.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, both parties can appeal within 10 working days to the District Court.

Is it worth getting a lawyer for a case like this?

It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified lawyer for specific guidance on your situation.

Official source: Tenancy Tribunal headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Tenancy Tribunal and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.