What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5274062?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Amanda Cherie Cook at 20 Hampshire Street, Aranui,

How much money was awarded in case 5274062?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5274062?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5274062?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12379136-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5274062?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Amanda Cherie Cook at 20 Hampshire Street, Aranui,

How much money was awarded in case 5274062?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5274062?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5274062?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12379136-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Hampshire Street, Aranui, Christchurch 8061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5274062 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenancy of Amanda Cherie Cook at 20 Hampshire Street, Aranui, Christchurch 8061 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora– Homes and Communities, at 11:59pm on 2 October 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for immediate termination of the tenancy due to a breach causing the premises to be uninhabitable.
There was a previous hearing held on 4 July 2025 that was adjourned to ensure that the tenant had received all documentation in support of the claim against her and to ensure that she could adequately respond. Background
The tenancy commenced on 27 January 2021. In April 2023, the tenant relocated into temporary accommodation to enable works to be carried out to the tenancy address.
During that time, a methamphetamine test was completed that returned results above the prescribed inhabitable levels. 1 Decontamination work was completed, and a clearance certificate and post-secondary testing report was provided to the landlord. 2
The landlord advises that during this decontamination work, the walls, carpeting, and ceiling were all removed and replaced.
The tenant moved back into the property on 9 January 2024 once all decontamination and retrofit work was completed.
On 28 January 2025, the landlord completed another methamphetamine test which showed the lounge had a level of 49.3μg/100cm 2 and that levels in other rooms had also increased since the decontamination work in 2023.
As a result, on 10 April 2025, the tenant was issued with a 7-day notice ending the tenancy.
The tenant refuses to vacate the tenancy and provide vacant possession to the landlord. The law on termination
Section 59A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that: (1) This section applies if, as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement (whether for a fixed-term tenancy or periodic tenancy) by a party, the premises are destroyed or are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable. (2) ... (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) ... (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.
The tenancy agreement included terms that the tenancy could be terminated if the tenant caused substantial damage to the home, or if the tenant breached one of the terms of the RTA. 1 Detailed Methamphetamine Assessment report dated 12 May 2023. 2 Clearance certificate and Post Decontamination Methamphetamine Assessment report dated 22 August 2023.
The RTA states that a tenant must not use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.
Methamphetamine is a Class A controlled drug and consumption is unlawful under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1974. The law on methamphetamine
It has been well recognised for years, that methamphetamine contamination presents risks for people living in dwellings, when the level of contamination is high. The difficulty has been determining what the tolerable level should be, above which the premises would be considered contaminated.
There is currently no regulation in law that determines the maximum inhabitable level of methamphetamine in New Zealand, so s59A of the RTA applies.
In recent years, the Tribunal has consistently applied the Gluckman report which determined that the level at which habitation of residential premises were considered safe were levels below 15μg/100cm 2 . 3 Anything above this level was considered to be uninhabitable and require decontamination.
This approach has been supported by the District Court. 4 Discussion
The levels here show that at least one of the readings, in the living room/storage door were above 15ug/100cm 2 and therefore the premises can be considered so seriously damaged as to be inhabitable.
The tenant submitted that the report was wrong, and that she feels targeted by the landlord. She refers to conversations had with staff from the landlord entity who just wanted her out of the property. She says she never smokes methamphetamine and would never allow anyone else in the property to either.
She does not want her tenancy to be terminated and says her and her family are entrenched in the community.
I do not have any other evidence that shows the property isn’t contaminated. Samples are sent to and independent laboratory, and I must take the reports and laboratory results from the landlord on face value. 3 Report, Methamphetamine Contamination in Residential Properties: Exposures, Risk Levels, and Interpretation of Standards, 29 May 2018. 4 Full Circle Real Estate v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947; Smith v Accessible Properties Limited [2019] NZCA 38, at [16].
Even if the tenant’s evidence is factually correct, and the process has been managed poorly, that does not change the fact that based on the evidence, the property is uninhabitable.
The tenant also claimed that the notice to terminate was retaliatory, however, a notice can only be considered retaliatory if it was issued under section 51 of the RTA. 5 For example, for notices giving 90 days, or 42 days’ notice of termination. See section 51 of the RTA.
I appreciate the concerns raised by the tenant, however, here the evidence shows that the premises are not inhabitable. If the landlord did not terminate the tenancy in these circumstances, they themselves could be held liable for continuing to tenant a property they know to be contaminated or uninhabitable. See section 45 of the RTA.
Accordingly, I find that the tenancy is terminated. Although I note the concerns raised by the landlord regarding the health and wellbeing of the occupants, I have granted possession to the landlord in three weeks to enable the tenant time to find alternative accommodation. R Harvey-Lane 11 September 2025 5 See section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Order

The tenancy of Amanda Cherie Cook at 20 Hampshire Street, Aranui, Christchurch 8061 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora– Homes and Communities, at 11:59pm on 2 October 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for immediate termination of the tenancy due to a breach causing the premises to be uninhabitable.
There was a previous hearing held on 4 July 2025 that was adjourned to ensure that the tenant had received all documentation in support of the claim against her and to ensure that she could adequately respond. Background
The tenancy commenced on 27 January 2021. In April 2023, the tenant relocated into temporary accommodation to enable works to be carried out to the tenancy address.
During that time, a methamphetamine test was completed that returned results above the prescribed inhabitable levels. 1 Decontamination work was completed, and a clearance certificate and post-secondary testing report was provided to the landlord. 2
The landlord advises that during this decontamination work, the walls, carpeting, and ceiling were all removed and replaced.
The tenant moved back into the property on 9 January 2024 once all decontamination and retrofit work was completed.
On 28 January 2025, the landlord completed another methamphetamine test which showed the lounge had a level of 49.3μg/100cm 2 and that levels in other rooms had also increased since the decontamination work in 2023.
As a result, on 10 April 2025, the tenant was issued with a 7-day notice ending the tenancy.
The tenant refuses to vacate the tenancy and provide vacant possession to the landlord. The law on termination
Section 59A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that: (1) This section applies if, as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement (whether for a fixed-term tenancy or periodic tenancy) by a party, the premises are destroyed or are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable. (2) ... (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) ... (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.
The tenancy agreement included terms that the tenancy could be terminated if the tenant caused substantial damage to the home, or if the tenant breached one of the terms of the RTA. 1 Detailed Methamphetamine Assessment report dated 12 May 2023. 2 Clearance certificate and Post Decontamination Methamphetamine Assessment report dated 22 August 2023.
The RTA states that a tenant must not use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.
Methamphetamine is a Class A controlled drug and consumption is unlawful under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1974. The law on methamphetamine
It has been well recognised for years, that methamphetamine contamination presents risks for people living in dwellings, when the level of contamination is high. The difficulty has been determining what the tolerable level should be, above which the premises would be considered contaminated.
There is currently no regulation in law that determines the maximum inhabitable level of methamphetamine in New Zealand, so s59A of the RTA applies.
In recent years, the Tribunal has consistently applied the Gluckman report which determined that the level at which habitation of residential premises were considered safe were levels below 15μg/100cm 2 . 3 Anything above this level was considered to be uninhabitable and require decontamination.
This approach has been supported by the District Court. 4 Discussion
The levels here show that at least one of the readings, in the living room/storage door were above 15ug/100cm 2 and therefore the premises can be considered so seriously damaged as to be inhabitable.
The tenant submitted that the report was wrong, and that she feels targeted by the landlord. She refers to conversations had with staff from the landlord entity who just wanted her out of the property. She says she never smokes methamphetamine and would never allow anyone else in the property to either.
She does not want her tenancy to be terminated and says her and her family are entrenched in the community.
I do not have any other evidence that shows the property isn’t contaminated. Samples are sent to and independent laboratory, and I must take the reports and laboratory results from the landlord on face value. 3 Report, Methamphetamine Contamination in Residential Properties: Exposures, Risk Levels, and Interpretation of Standards, 29 May 2018. 4 Full Circle Real Estate v Danielle Piper [2019] NZDC 4947; Smith v Accessible Properties Limited [2019] NZCA 38, at [16].
Even if the tenant’s evidence is factually correct, and the process has been managed poorly, that does not change the fact that based on the evidence, the property is uninhabitable.
The tenant also claimed that the notice to terminate was retaliatory, however, a notice can only be considered retaliatory if it was issued under section 51 of the RTA. 5 For example, for notices giving 90 days, or 42 days’ notice of termination. See section 51 of the RTA.
I appreciate the concerns raised by the tenant, however, here the evidence shows that the premises are not inhabitable. If the landlord did not terminate the tenancy in these circumstances, they themselves could be held liable for continuing to tenant a property they know to be contaminated or uninhabitable. See section 45 of the RTA.
Accordingly, I find that the tenancy is terminated. Although I note the concerns raised by the landlord regarding the health and wellbeing of the occupants, I have granted possession to the landlord in three weeks to enable the tenant time to find alternative accommodation. R Harvey-Lane 11 September 2025 5 See section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5274062 — Tenancy dispute at 20 Hampshire Street, Aranui, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5274062 — Tenancy dispute at 20 Hampshire Street, Aranui, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions