Tribunal Grants Landlord Possession Due to Contamination
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal granted the landlord possession of the property due to contamination issues, despite the tenant's opposition. The tenant was required to transfer to different social housing.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy if the social housing provider requires the tenant to transfer to different social housing.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal granted possession to the landlord due to contamination issues.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal granted possession to the landlord due to contamination issues, terminating the tenancy and requiring the tenant to transfer to different social housing.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5187011 1
[2025] NZTT 5187011
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT [Event location suppressed]
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
2. [COMPANY] is granted possession of the premises at [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] at 11.59 pm on Monday 31 March 2025.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing by telephone with [NAME] representing the landlord.
2. The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.
3. The landlord has terminated the premises under section 53B(1)(b)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) which provides that a landlord under a periodic tenancy may terminate the tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice if the social housing provider ([NAME]) requires the tenant to transfer to different social housing provided by that provider, and the provider considers that: the transfer is necessary or desirable for any reason; and the other housing is appropriate for the tenant’s housing needs as most recently assessed (regardless of when that assessment took place).
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5187011 2
4. The termination notice under section 53B served on the tenant was dated 18 September 2024 and terminated the tenancy with effect on 19 December 2024 (“the termination notice”).
5. The landlord explained that they deemed the transfer necessary because testing of the premises on 20 May 2024 established that the property is contaminated with methamphetamine, and they need to decontaminate and remediate the property which cannot be done while the tenant is in occupation. The works could take some time and the landlord considers that it is not feasible to temporarily relocate the tenant until the works are completed nor to hold the property for the tenant until the works are completed.
6. The landlord understands that the contamination was not caused by the tenant but by the tenant’s new partner at the time who was staying at the property in May 2024. In that regard, a Police raid at the property on 1 May 2024 resulted in this person being charged with an offence relating to possession of methamphetamine.
7. The tenant is opposed to a transfer and made the following submissions:
a. She understood from discussions with the landlord in February 2024 that because she had settled arrears owed at that date and spent money cleaning up the premises after a breach notice was served, she would be able to stay permanently at the premises;
b. She believes her partner did not smoke or manufacture methamphetamine in the premises and that the testing completed by the landlord was “bogus”;
c. She claims her [NAME] manager had an unfavourable opinion about her partner suggesting that this motivated the landlord’s actions;
d. A 7-day notice to terminate the tenancy was served on her on 1 May 2024;
e. That some of the various notices (including the termination notice) from the landlord quote the incorrect customer reference number for her so the notices are not valid;
f. A transfer will cause her and her daughter (also residing at the premises) a huge amount of stress and it will be unsettling to move away from a familiar environment including neighbours they know;
g. The alternative property which the landlord advised was available in today’s hearing is a new option she has only been made aware of today. She is concerned that it is not a freestanding house like her current house.
8. [NAME] explained that the 7-day notice which the tenant referred to was dated 31 May 2024 and was retracted because the landlord was concerned to find an alternative property for the tenant. She also explained that while some notices
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5187011 3
may have an incorrect customer reference number they are all correctly addressed to the tenant at the tenancy address.
9. [NAME] also explained that because the tenant has turned down the offer of previous properties, the landlord cannot hold on to them for her and have made them available to other social housing tenants as required. [NAME] confirmed that the property mentioned in the hearing today is a new property on offer and [NAME] assess that it is suitable for the tenant’s needs.
10. [NAME] sent through a copy of the methamphetamine testing results and report for the premises. I am satisfied that there is no evidence that this report is “bogus” as suggested by the tenant. Furthermore, the landlord has an obligation to address the contamination and remediate the property regardless of who might be to blame for the contamination.
11. The Tribunal accepts that a transfer will of course cause stress and upheaval for the tenant. However, the Tribunal cannot take those factors into account when deciding whether to grant a possession order. Equally, the fact that this has been the tenant’s home for many years and there was an expectation that she would continue living there, the landlord is under no obligation and cannot guarantee that the tenant may live there permanently. If the Tribunal considers that a valid termination notice has been served and the requirements of s53B met, then it must grant possession.
12. Furthermore, the Tribunal cannot look behind [NAME]’s reasons for transferring the tenant and substitute its own opinion (if different) for the landlord’s opinion. Section 53B makes clear that the decision to transfer the tenant and the reasons for it must be assessed by the social housing provider, [NAME]. If they consider the transfer is necessary or desirable for any reason, and they consider that the other housing is appropriate, then they may give the termination notice.
13. It follows that I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord has established grounds for issuing a termination notice under s53B and the notice served on the tenant is valid and complies with s53B.
14. The tenancy ended on 19 December 2024 which is less than 90 days before the application for a possession order was lodged. The requirements of section 64(1) RTA are satisfied.
15. The landlord has agreed to give the tenant some further time before possession of the premises is granted. Therefore the possession order takes effect on 31 March 2025 at 11.59pm.
16. I record for the tenant’s benefit that the landlord has also confirmed that it will cover all reasonable costs related to the move. This includes furniture moving costs, disconnection and reconnection charges for gas, power, telephone, and internet.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5187011 4
17. I have determined that it is not in the Public interest to disclose the name and identifying details of the tenant because there is no proof that she is responsible for the contamination and references to that in this decision may be unfairly prejudicial to the tenant. Also, while the tenant has not complied with the termination notice, which has resulted in this application, I find it is likely through a misunderstanding of her rights and obligations. See section 95A RTA.
[NAME] 17 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5187011 5
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.
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].
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/
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The landlord needed to decontaminate the property due to methamphetamine contamination, which required the tenant to move out.
- The landlord's decision to transfer the tenant was considered necessary or desirable, and the alternative housing was deemed appropriate.
- The termination notice was valid and met the legal requirements for ending the tenancy.
- The landlord agreed to cover all reasonable costs associated with the tenant's move.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant's belief that her partner did not cause the contamination was not accepted by the Tribunal.
- The tenant's claim that an incorrect customer reference number invalidated the notices was rejected.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal granted the landlord possession of the property due to contamination issues.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the landlord could terminate the tenancy due to contamination issues and require the tenant to transfer to different social housing.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant possession to the landlord because the property was contaminated with methamphetamine, and the landlord needed to decontaminate and remediate the property.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, specifically section 53B, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the property was contaminated with methamphetamine, and the landlord needed to decontaminate and remediate the property.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case, the tenant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may face termination of their tenancy if their property is contaminated and the landlord needs to remediate the property.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The methamphetamine testing results and report for the premises were critical evidence.