On 16 April 2026, the government introduced new regulations defining the maximum acceptable level of methamphetamine residue in rental housing. These regulations guide when a property needs to be decontaminated and when termination of a tenancy may be justified.
Find out more about the new methamphetamine contamination regulations
Methamphetamine (meth or "P") is an illegal class A drug. When a property is heavily contaminated with methamphetamine there may be health risks for people living there. At very high levels, it may not be safe to live in the house.
Both tenants and landlords have responsibilities when it comes to methamphetamine contamination.
Landlords must not rent out properties that are contaminated by methamphetamine (s 45(1)(bd) and (1AAB) RTA).
Find out more about tenants’ rights regarding methamphetamine contaminated properties.
Tenants must not use their property for an unlawful purpose, or damage the property, by using methamphetamine (s 40(2)(a)–(b) RTA).
When can tenants lose their tenancy?
A tenant can lose their tenancy if:
- the landlord takes a case to the Tenancy Tribunal proving that the tenant has used, or allowed someone else to use, the property for an unlawful purpose by smoking, manufacturing or selling methamphetamine (s40(2)(b) RTA), and/or
- testing shows methamphetamine contamination at a level that makes the property unsafe to live in (uninhabitable) (s 59B RTA).
The property is uninhabitable if the methamphetamine level is above 30 µg/100 cm² in any part of the premises (reg 6(2) Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026)(s 59B RTA).
If an uninhabitable level of methamphetamine contamination is found, the landlord can give the tenant 7 days’ notice to leave without going to the Tenancy Tribunal provided the following criteria are met:
- the landlord has carried out methamphetamine testing using prescribed methods (see section below How contamination is determined)
- the contamination has been caused by a breach of the tenancy agreement (ie, caused by the tenant or by someone else that the tenant allowed to be on the property) (s 59B(2) and (6) RTA) .
The landlord may choose to take the tenant to the Tenancy Tribunal to seek tenancy termination or damages resulting from methamphetamine contamination if other issues or costs are involved.
If the tenant feels that they have received notice unfairly or that the above criteria for a 7-day notice have not been met, they can take a case to the Tenancy Tribunal. See also section below How responsibility for contamination is determined.
The landlord can claim damages through the Tenancy Tribunal
The tenant can be ordered to pay the costs for decontamination of the property. Any room that has a methamphetamine level greater than 15 µg/100 cm² is considered contaminated (reg 5(2) Residential Tenancies Meth Regs 2026). Methamphetamine contamination is considered to be intentional damage and the tenant is responsible for paying the full cost of it being fixed.
The tenant may also be ordered to pay a penalty of up to $1,800 if the Tenancy Tribunal determines that the tenant used their rental property for an unlawful purpose (Schedule 1A RTA).
Case Study —Tenancy terminated and damages awarded for methamphetamine contamination
When methamphetamine levels between 26 and 51 μg/100cm² were found in bedrooms and living areas of a rental property, the Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to vacate immediately and their tenancy was terminated.
The new regulations were not in place, but the Tenancy Tribunal described the methamphetamine levels as dangerous and too high for anyone to safely live in the property.
The tenant had lived in the property for over six years, and the Tribunal was satisfied that the tenant was responsible for the methamphetamine contamination. The tenant was ordered to pay $12,500 for decontamination (later reduced to $10,000 due to their inability to pay).
Tenancy Tribunal Orders 4970236 and 5303622
How contamination is determined
The landlord can carry out methamphetamine testing at any stage during the tenancy as long as they follow the notice and disclosure rules set out in the RTA (s 48(2)(ba) and (3B) RTA).
Because methamphetamine contamination is a health and safety issue, the Tenancy Tribunal has upheld the right of landlords to carry out testing without having to provide justification to the tenant.
Initial screening
Initial screening to detect methamphetamine residue can be done by anyone, including the landlord or tenant.
However, to be valid for further action, the screening must follow the procedures set out in the methamphetamine regulations (reg 8 Residential Tenancies Meth Regs 2026).
Detailed testing needed if contamination is detected
An area is considered contaminated if levels are above 15 µg/100 cm² (reg 5(2) Residential Tenancies Meth Regs 2026).
If a valid screening test shows contamination, the landlord is required to undertake further detailed testing as per the methamphetamine regulations (regs 7(2)(b) and 9 Residential Tenancies Meth Regs 2026).
The landlord is also required to undertake detailed testing if the police or a local authority tells them that it is likely that methamphetamine manufacture has taken place in the property (regs 7(2)(a) and 9 Residential Tenancies Meth Regs 2026).
Detailed testing can only be done by a qualified professional.
If contamination is confirmed and notified to the landlord, the landlord must undertake decontamination of the areas affected.
Find out more about methamphetamine testing and decontamination here.
How responsibility for contamination is determined
Tenants may feel vulnerable regarding whether they can be held unfairly responsible for methamphetamine contamination caused by a previous tenant.
In the past, properties were often treated as contaminated and unsafe based on extremely low methamphetamine contamination thresholds (as low as 1.5 µg/100 cm²). This can no longer happen under the new legal threshold for contamination (15 µg/100 cm²) (reg 5(2) Residential Tenancies Meth Regs).
The Tenancy Tribunal has stressed that, in general, to prove that a tenant is responsible for methamphetamine contamination, the landlord must have carried out testing before the tenant moved in. Liability cannot normally be proven (or disproven) just by the timing of tenancies. The exception to this is if the tenant has been in the property so long that it is highly unlikely that the contamination is from a previous occupant.
Case Study — Claim for methamphetamine contamination damages dismissed
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a claim against a tenant for the costs of methamphetamine decontamination in a case heard before the new regulations came into effect.
Methamphetamine testing of the rental property found levels between 11.06 and 14.78 µg/100 cm² in the lounge and bedroom and 16.85 µg/100 cm² in the toilet. The landlords undertook decontamination work because they relied on an earlier New Zealand Standards 8510 report that specified a methamphetamine contamination threshold of 1.5 µg/100 cm².
The Tenancy Tribunal adjudicator instead considered the Chief Science Advisor’s report, which concluded that methamphetamine levels below 15 µg/100 cm² do not pose a risk to human health. It was ruled that there was no damage to the rental property because all levels of methamphetamine were below this threshold apart from a toilet.
The Tribunal also noted that it could not be proven that the tenant was responsible for the methamphetamine contamination because no testing was done before the tenancy started.
Appeal to District Court dismissed
A subsequent appeal to the District Court, made on the grounds that the Tenancy Tribunal adjudicator gave the Chief Science Advisor’s report undue weight, was also dismissed.
It was ruled that the Chief Science Advisor’s report was the best knowledge on the risks of methamphetamine contamination available at the time of the hearing, and the adjudicator was correct to use this guidance.
The landlord also appealed on the grounds that there was evidence of methamphetamine manufacture in the premises. However, this was also dismissed because the initial claim was made on the basis of the tenant damaging the property, not on the basis that they used the premises for an unlawful purpose.
Last reviewed on 16 Apr 2026
Did you find this information helpful?
