Housing NZ also disputes the tribunal's ruling, saying it would never share information without the tenant's permission. It also says it would be unlikely to act on such information without further evidence.
The Tenancy Tribunal would not comment, but the Ministry of Justice granted the Herald access to the court file from the case.
Among the evidence is a handwritten note by the tribunal adjudicator which said "ADHB – alcohol and drug detoxification hosp made contact & suggested we test unit for contamination".
There is no other reference to any information sharing between health officials and Housing NZ.
A spokesman for the Waitemata DHB reiterated that it was not the practice of the Community Alcohol and Drug Service to share confidential medical information with HNZ.
It had rechecked the patient's records and there was nothing in it to suggest any information was given to HNZ, the spokesman said.
That means it is no clearer why the tribunal suggested that health officials played a role in his eviction.
The handwritten note by the adjudicator also says "more likely than not" - an apparent reference to the tribunal's ruling that the meth contamination "more than likely" occurred during Bradley's tenancy.
He was ordered to pay $2258 to Housing NZ for the meth test and was evicted.
Bradley is able to appeal the decision, though the three-year limit for an appeal has nearly ended.
He could not be reached for comment. But he told Radio New Zealand earlier this month that he never smoked meth in the apartment.
He said he was still paying off the debt for the meth test, which was automatically deducted from his benefit payments.
Housing NZ has begun a review of the way it handled meth contamination cases.
The Government asked for the review after a report by the departing Prime Minister's Science Advisor Sir Peter Gluckman said that meth residue posed no health risks.
