Off the back of last week’s 2026 Meth Regulations Webinar, Tenancy Senior Consultant, Chris Matthews, and TAI Chief Executive, Craig Furness, answer the top questions asked by the viewers ahead of the regulations commencing on April 16.
I was on the 2017 NZS8510 standard raising it to 1.5. Gluckman Report said it was his opinion 15Mg would be safe BUT the science will need to be completed. Since then – apart of opinions – what actual science has been completed?
Fair point. The ESR report from 2022 likely provides the most comprehensive background on how the government arrived at the 15 threshold decision. If you have not read it, here it is for your reference:
https://www.hud.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Documents/esr-report-2022.pdf
-CM
If insurance allows a landlord to clean back to only under 15.00, let’s be honest we know that meth can also leach back out… So then how does that stand from an insurance policy and the landlord’s ability to then be in breach of the RTA?
Some insurers are expected to align their requirements with the changing regulations and standards and only require properties to be remediated to below 15 µg/100cm², while others will still apply the more conservative 1.5 µg/100cm² threshold or some other level. The Residential Tenancies (Managing Methamphetamine Contamination) Regulations 2026, set a maximum contamination level for a residential premises to be lawfully tenanted. This establishes a legal “acceptable level” for habitation.
However, insurance policy requirements operate independently of the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA). Insurers will generally require remediation to the contamination level specified in their policy wording. This may be 1.5 µg, 15 µg, or another threshold determined by the insurer, and in some cases may be stricter than the regulatory standard. Where an insurer specifies a lower acceptable level than 15 µg, the insured will be required to remediate to that lower level to satisfy the policy conditions. Usually, the outcome sought is complete decontamination, not just reduction to below a target level set by regulation or the insurer.
If contamination later exceeds either the regulatory threshold (15 µg) or the insurer’s specified level, whether due to new use, manufacture, or potential re-emergence (“leaching”), this would typically be treated by the insurer as a new event, provided the previous contamination had been remediated and verified in accordance with regulations and standards.
In terms of landlord obligations under section 45 of the RTA, the issue of “leaching” is important. Section 45A provides some protection, as a landlord is not in breach for failing to provide clean or habitable premises if the contamination was unknown to them at the time. That said, once contamination becomes known (regardless of the cause), the landlord is expected to take appropriate steps to remedy it to ensure the property meets the required standard for habitation. The landlord should also take all actions available to them under the RTA to protect their insurance position. – CF
For those of us who don’t know what the decontamination process is – could you sum it up in a nutshell. Has the method changed over the past years
Good question. Decontamination under the 2026 regulations still follows the NZ 2017 Standard, but the regulations tighten and clarify how it’s applied. If levels are over 15, only the affected areas need to be cleaned, rather than automatically treating the whole property as before. The cleaning process itself hasn’t changed much, but it will now be regulated in law. This usually involves isolating areas, cleaning or removing contaminated surfaces and fittings, and treating soft furnishings. After cleaning, an independent qualified tester must retest, and the process repeats until the property is below the threshold and considered safe. – CM
if an ingoing test was not done at the beginning and later found 25 mcg and unhabitable. Not sure who is responsible for contamination. If temporary accommodation is provided to tenants, does the landlord have to find and provide alternate accommodation?
Generally, a landlord is not responsible for finding or paying for alternative accommodation, especially if there is no evidence the landlord nor the tenant is in breach. In this case, it would be reasonable for the tenant’s rent to reduce to $0 while remediation is completed and with the rent money the tenants could organise their own alternative accommodation. It may also be appropriate for the landlord to provide a small amount of compensation for the inconvenience. – CM
If a property was tested at the start of a tenancy, and a tenant was to request to break their lease, could a meth test be a reasonable charge a landlord could claim on a lease break as part of finding a new replacement tenant?
The question of whether this is can be a ‘reasonable expense incurred by a landlord’ under Section 44A is vexed. The Tenancy Tribunal has on some occasions enforced a meth test as reasonable and on other occasions not. We tend to favour an approach made in one particular tribunal decision, which persuasively argued that the tenant should be liable pro-raita depending on how many months of the fixed term are remaining. E.g. 3 months of a 12-month fixed term left = the tenant is liable for 25% of the bill. That to us is more than ‘reasonable.’ – CM
At the start of the current tenancy, a meth test was conducted and the results were clear. However, during a recent inspection, the property manager observed evidence of drug use at the property. In this situation, is the owner or property manager required to conduct a follow-up meth test while the tenancy is ongoing, or must we wait until the tenancy has ended?
Where there is evidence of suspected illegal activity during a tenancy, best practice is to address the issue promptly rather than waiting until the tenancy ends.
Under section 48(2)(ba) of the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA), a landlord or their agent is permitted to enter the premises to carry out testing for methamphetamine contamination, provided the appropriate notice requirements are met. This allows for testing to be undertaken during the tenancy if there are reasonable grounds for concern.
If testing confirms contamination consistent with unlawful activity (e.g. drug use or manufacture), this may support an application to the Tenancy Tribunal for termination of the tenancy under section 40(2)(b), which requires that the tenant must not use, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.
From an insurance perspective, policyholders are generally expected to take reasonable steps to mitigate loss and act upon known risks. If illegal activity is suspected and no action is taken, this could potentially impact a future claim, particularly if contamination is later discovered and the insurer considers that earlier intervention may have reduced the extent of the loss. Whether a claim is accepted would depend on the specific policy wording and circumstances. – CF
How can we spot meth use during our inspections?
Compared to cannabis, detecting methamphetamine use from the naked eye (or nose) can be a difficult task. Any odour or smell generally quickly disappears, so if drug paraphernalia is not evident then you may need to rely on your assessment of erratic tenant behaviour and/or neighbour reports. Should you have any suspicions, a property manager or landlord always have the ability to test for methamphetamine with 48 hours’ notice under Section 48. – CM
Is there a specific clause that you would recommend to have in a management authority?
Stayed tuned. We are currently updating our clauses in our tenancy agreement and management agreement and they’ll be available by April 16. – CM
