How much money was awarded in case 5206552?

Rubbish Removal: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $745.70 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $321.94 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $13,800.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $14,950.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $538.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,858.57 awarded to landlord; Paint And Restore Interior: $5,750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5206552?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Lost Rent.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5206552?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12162458-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5206552?

Rubbish Removal: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $745.70 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $321.94 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $13,800.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $14,950.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $538.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,858.57 awarded to landlord; Paint And Restore Interior: $5,750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5206552?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Lost Rent.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5206552?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12162458-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

48 Peter Buck Road, New Windsor, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5206552 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5206552?

The tribunal order states: Linh Ngoc Le must pay Xiaokui Liu $37,511.71 immediately, calculated as shown

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5206552 — net $37,511.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears up to and including 03 March 2025	$2,858.57	Rent arrears up to and including 03 March 2025
Compensation for 6 days’ lost rent	$745.70	Compensation for 6 days’ lost rent
Meth testing	$321.94	Meth testing
Replace damaged / missing windows and doors	$13,800.00	Replace damaged / missing windows and doors
Repairs to kitchen	$14,950.00	Repairs to kitchen
Repairs: paint and restore interior	$5,750.00	Repairs: paint and restore interior
Cleaning: including rubbish removal	$2,000.00	Cleaning: including rubbish removal
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$538.50	Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$37,511.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$37,511.71

Linh Ngoc Le must pay Xiaokui Liu $37,511.71 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,480.00 (3019459-009) to Xiaokui Liu immediately.

The landlord’s application for compensation for the assessment of cannabis growing’s’ effect on the premises is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. An interpreter attended the hearing to assist the Tribunal. The tenant did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant was served notice of the hearing in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

On 03 March 2025, this Tribunal terminated this tenancy for abandonment under the expediated abandonment process. 1 Paragraph 3 of the reasons for that Order provides: On 31 January 2025, the landlord became aware (or ought to have been aware) that the tenant had abandoned the premises. The landlord was notified by Police that a search warrant had been executed on the premises, a large-scale cannabis growing operation was discovered, and three persons were arrested on the scene. A police report has been provided with the application which confirms that the premises has been extensively damaged. The landlord has made attempts to contact the tenant without success.

The tenancy was terminated with immediate effect meaning the landlord was granted possession of the premises on 03 March 2025. The landlord has provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger showing the amount due as at that date. This claim is proved.

The landlord has also claimed for compensation equivalent to 6 days’ rent. This is claimed on the basis that there was significant damage to the premises and the landlord suffered a loss in rent.

During the hearing, the landlord provided photographs showing the state of the premises at the start of the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy. The damage to the premises is extensive and is consistent with a large scale cannabis growing operation. I accept that the landlord would not have been able to relet the premises for at least the days claimed. I find that compensation of six days rent as claimed by the landlord is appropriate. This claim is proved.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the RTA provides that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, 1 Xiaokui Liu v Linh Ngoc Le [2025] NZTT 5173035, 03 March 2025. return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

To say that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish is an understatement. The landlord claims $2300.00 (including GST) in cleaning costs which includes rubbish removal. Given the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy, I accept that this level of cleaning was required. This claim is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that a landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.

Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent).

Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.

Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. (See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.)

The landlord claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy and was deliberate: a. Doors and windows removed and/or broken; b. Holes in walls to allow venting (presumably for the cannabis growing operation); c. Cupboards removed from the kitchen; d. Significant damage to the walls and doors.

The applicant has provided photographs of the premises at the start of the tenancy and the end of the tenancy to support her claims. The landlord has also provided invoices for these claims. These claims are proved.

In addition, the landlord is claiming fees to reinstate electricity to the premises as the police cut the electrical source as a safety measure and the cost of meth testing. These claims are also proved.

The landlord has claimed $321.94 for ‘assessment of cannabis growing’s effect on property”. An invoice was not supplied to support this claim. At the hearing the landlord was unable to explain what this claim was for. This claim is dismissed.

The landlord has provided evidence showing that the premises were insured but the claim was not accepted by the insurance company. In any event, I note that it is a general principle that insurance payments do not reduce liability for damages (Anderson v James (1908) 28 NZLR 34). The law of subrogation may require the landlord to account for any recovery to insurers, but the insurance payment does not reduce the tenant’s liability. Filing fee:

The landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I must order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5206552 — net $37,511.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears up to and including 03 March 2025	$2,858.57	Rent arrears up to and including 03 March 2025
Compensation for 6 days’ lost rent	$745.70	Compensation for 6 days’ lost rent
Meth testing	$321.94	Meth testing
Replace damaged / missing windows and doors	$13,800.00	Replace damaged / missing windows and doors
Repairs to kitchen	$14,950.00	Repairs to kitchen
Repairs: paint and restore interior	$5,750.00	Repairs: paint and restore interior
Cleaning: including rubbish removal	$2,000.00	Cleaning: including rubbish removal
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$538.50	Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$37,511.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$37,511.71

Order

Linh Ngoc Le must pay Xiaokui Liu $37,511.71 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,480.00 (3019459-009) to Xiaokui Liu immediately.
The landlord’s application for compensation for the assessment of cannabis growing’s’ effect on the premises is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. An interpreter attended the hearing to assist the Tribunal. The tenant did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant was served notice of the hearing in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

On 03 March 2025, this Tribunal terminated this tenancy for abandonment under the expediated abandonment process. 1 Paragraph 3 of the reasons for that Order provides: On 31 January 2025, the landlord became aware (or ought to have been aware) that the tenant had abandoned the premises. The landlord was notified by Police that a search warrant had been executed on the premises, a large-scale cannabis growing operation was discovered, and three persons were arrested on the scene. A police report has been provided with the application which confirms that the premises has been extensively damaged. The landlord has made attempts to contact the tenant without success.
The tenancy was terminated with immediate effect meaning the landlord was granted possession of the premises on 03 March 2025. The landlord has provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger showing the amount due as at that date. This claim is proved.
The landlord has also claimed for compensation equivalent to 6 days’ rent. This is claimed on the basis that there was significant damage to the premises and the landlord suffered a loss in rent.
During the hearing, the landlord provided photographs showing the state of the premises at the start of the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy. The damage to the premises is extensive and is consistent with a large scale cannabis growing operation. I accept that the landlord would not have been able to relet the premises for at least the days claimed. I find that compensation of six days rent as claimed by the landlord is appropriate. This claim is proved.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the RTA provides that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, 1 Xiaokui Liu v Linh Ngoc Le [2025] NZTT 5173035, 03 March 2025. return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
To say that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish is an understatement. The landlord claims $2300.00 (including GST) in cleaning costs which includes rubbish removal. Given the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy, I accept that this level of cleaning was required. This claim is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that a landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. (See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.)
The landlord claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy and was deliberate: a. Doors and windows removed and/or broken; b. Holes in walls to allow venting (presumably for the cannabis growing operation); c. Cupboards removed from the kitchen; d. Significant damage to the walls and doors.
The applicant has provided photographs of the premises at the start of the tenancy and the end of the tenancy to support her claims. The landlord has also provided invoices for these claims. These claims are proved.
In addition, the landlord is claiming fees to reinstate electricity to the premises as the police cut the electrical source as a safety measure and the cost of meth testing. These claims are also proved.
The landlord has claimed $321.94 for ‘assessment of cannabis growing’s effect on property”. An invoice was not supplied to support this claim. At the hearing the landlord was unable to explain what this claim was for. This claim is dismissed.
The landlord has provided evidence showing that the premises were insured but the claim was not accepted by the insurance company. In any event, I note that it is a general principle that insurance payments do not reduce liability for damages (Anderson v James (1908) 28 NZLR 34). The law of subrogation may require the landlord to account for any recovery to insurers, but the insurance payment does not reduce the tenant’s liability. Filing fee:
The landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I must order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5206552 — Property damage at 48 Peter Buck Road, New Windsor, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5206552 — Property damage at 48 Peter Buck Road, New Windsor, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions