What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5261682 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Aligre Holdings Limited $73,782.20 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5261682?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Decontamination: $11,442.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $47,524.20 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $16,942.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Replace Furnishings – Carpet: $1,745.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5261682?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5261682?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12448507-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5261682 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Aligre Holdings Limited $73,782.20 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5261682?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Methamphetamine Decontamination: $11,442.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $47,524.20 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $16,942.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Replace Furnishings – Carpet: $1,745.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5261682?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5261682?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12448507-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 8 Pratt Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5261682 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5261682 — net $73,782.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Building repairs	$47,524.20		Building repairs
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$16,942.90		Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Replace furnishings – carpet	$1,745.60		Replace furnishings – carpet
Methamphetamine decontamination	$11,442.50		Methamphetamine decontamination
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Less replacement hot water cylinder		$2,500.00	Less replacement hot water cylinder
Less bond (already refunded		$1,400.00	Less bond (already refunded
Total award	$77,682.20	$3,900.00
Net award	$73,782.20
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$73,782.20

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Aligre Holdings Limited $73,782.20 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 29 July 2025 and 23 September 2025.
The landlord’s application was for termination of the tenancy and refund of the bond. The tenant vacated the property on 7 July 2025. The landlord amended the application to include compensation.
The premises comprise a small one-bedroom unit with an open plan lounge/kitchen, separate bathroom, and garage. The premises were severely damaged during the tenancy. Liability for Damage
Tenants are liable for intentional damage caused by a person for whose actions they are responsible. In the Tribunal’s order dated 29 July 2025, the Tribunal found (in effect) that the tenant was responsible for the damage, either because the tenant caused the damage or (as the tenant explained) was responsible for the actions of unknown persons who were in the premises. The tenant asked me to reconsider this finding at the second hearing.
Section 41 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (tenant’s responsibility for actions of others) (the Act) provides: The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant. Where any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) intentionally or carelessly damages the premises while the tenant is in the premises, it shall be presumed that the tenant permitted that person to be in the premises unless the tenant proves that he or she took all reasonable steps to prevent that person from entering the premises or (as the case may require) to eject that person from the premises.
Section 41(1) imposes liability for any breach by someone in the premises with the tenant’s permission. The tenant said he allowed people to live in the garage until the landlord told him this was not permitted. He then asked these individuals to leave. Subsequently, other people (associates of the initial guests) started coming to the property and causing damage when the tenant was out. The tenant said he would come home and see damage. The tenant made no mention of damage having been caused by third parties in his emails to the landlord between February and July 2025, which focussed on his attempts to tidy up.
The tenant said he reported the damage to the Police and was given several opportunities to provide the Police reports. He did not mention this in his emails to the landlord until 24 June 2025, or the fact that his keys had been stolen. The premises may have been left unsecured for an unknown period. In my opinion, the tenant implicitly gave permission for other persons to be in the premises by not taking steps to remove them or prevent access and is therefore liable for their actions pursuant to section 41(1) of the Act.
Section 41(2) presumes the tenant has permitted someone to be in the premises in one specific instance, i.e., where the tenant is present when the person causes damage. While the tenant says the damage occurred when he was out, it is difficult to believe such severe damage only happened then.
Alternatively, I consider the tenant is liable on the basis that he permitted other persons to cause the damage, in breach of section 40(2)(a) of the Act. This does not depend on permission to be on the premises, or whether the tenant was there when the damage happened. The tenant knew someone was causing damage but took no steps to secure the premises, failed to tell the landlord what was happening, and in my opinion failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent entry or to have the trespassers removed. The tenant could have served a trespass notice, could have requested that the landlord change the locks, and could have insisted that the Police attend or that the landlord call the Police.
I am satisfied that it is in accordance with the substantial merits and justice of this matter that the tenant be held liable for the damage. Compensation for Damage
The insurance loss adjuster visited the property on 14 July 2025. The report noted: Upon inspecting the premises, the Insured found it in a severely damaged condition. Debris is scattered everywhere, decomposing food is present on the floor, there are holes in the walls, locks have been broken, the heat pump is compromised, human waste is found on every surface of the house, and it seems that fires have been set in the garage.
The loss adjuster’s report included a scope of works and estimated the claim at $65,000.00. The repairs required included: • Remove wall linings and replace doors. • Replace the carpet in the bedroom and lounge. • Replace skirting boards. • Replace the kitchen cabinet, splashback, and bench. • Replace the oven. • Tiles in the bathroom, laundry, and kitchen to be replaced if they cannot be cleaned.
The landlord has provided the following quotes: • From a builder for repairs totalling $47,524.26. The works include repairs to the framing, gib, doors, tiles, and windows, with a full bathroom and kitchen replacement. • From a tradesman for replacing the heat pump in the sum of $2,932.50. The landlord says the heat pump is not working. • From an electrician to replace the wiring in the sum of $16,942.95. In an email dated 30 July 2025, the electrician explained that the cabling had been damaged and many of the switches, power points and light fittings had also been damaged. To meet current standards the correct circuit protection at the switchboard would need to be installed. The appliances in the unit had been damaged beyond repair. The quote included a replacement stove, oven, and rangehood, as well as a hot water cylinder. • For replacement carpet in the lounge and bedroom in the sum of $1,745.60.
The measure of damages is the sum of money that will put the applicant in the position he would have been in if the contract had been performed (so far as money can do so). Assessment of compensation is essentially a question of fact. Where uncertainty makes it difficult to assess compensation, the Tribunal must do the best it can in the circumstances. The object is to provide fair and reasonable compensation.
The quotes for building repairs are not itemised in any detail, but the overall cost of repairs is in the same range as the loss adjuster’s estimate. It is unclear why the heat pump is not working. The outside unit is also damaged, according to the landlord, although this is difficult to see in the photographs.
I find that the building repairs are necessary because of the damage caused by the tenant and are reasonable in amount. The methamphetamine contamination (discussed below) provides a further reason why the carpet will have to be replaced. The electrical wiring, cooktop, oven, and the rangehood all require replacement because of damage.
I make an allowance for the cost of replacing the heat pump. There is some uncertainty as to why it is not working, and whether it has been physically damaged. While the loss adjuster made no comment suggesting it did not require replacement, it was not included in the repair summary. The landlord said there was no power going to the heat pump. This could indicate the problem is related to damage to the electrical wiring.
I also make an allowance of $2,500.00 for the hot water cylinder (my estimate of the cost of a replacement). This is not shown in any of the photographs, and it is unclear if this stopped working because of damage caused by the tenant. It is not mentioned by the loss adjuster. The landlord indicated it was 10-15 years old. It may simply have reached the end of its life.
It may be possible for the landlord to bring a further application in future for these losses if new evidence, not currently available, establishes that the tenant damaged these appliances/fixtures.
The tenant must be given credit for the bond of $1,400.00 which has already been refunded to the landlord by the Bond Centre as directed. Contamination
The premises were tested for methamphetamine on 31 July 2025 by way of a 10-sample composite. The total methamphetamine present in all the samples was 280 ug/100cm². There is evidence of manufacture according to the testing report, which included photographs of utensils. That is consistent with the very high level of contamination.
The evidence establishes that the tenant either used, or permitted the premises to be used, for the unlawful purpose of manufacturing, possessing, and/or using drugs, in breach of section 40(2)(b) of the Act. The tenant knew that the people he invited to live in the garage were drug-users. The extent of the contamination is suggestive of manufacture. It is unlikely this could have happened in a small unit without the tenant’s knowledge. I award the estimated methamphetamine remediation costs of $9,950.00 plus GST ($11,442.50). Filing Fee and Suppression
The landlord’s application has been successful. I award the filing fee.
Name suppression was not requested.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5261682 — net $73,782.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Building repairs	$47,524.20		Building repairs
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$16,942.90		Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Replace furnishings – carpet	$1,745.60		Replace furnishings – carpet
Methamphetamine decontamination	$11,442.50		Methamphetamine decontamination
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Less replacement hot water cylinder		$2,500.00	Less replacement hot water cylinder
Less bond (already refunded		$1,400.00	Less bond (already refunded
Total award	$77,682.20	$3,900.00
Net award	$73,782.20
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$73,782.20

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Aligre Holdings Limited $73,782.20 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 29 July 2025 and 23 September 2025.
The landlord’s application was for termination of the tenancy and refund of the bond. The tenant vacated the property on 7 July 2025. The landlord amended the application to include compensation.
The premises comprise a small one-bedroom unit with an open plan lounge/kitchen, separate bathroom, and garage. The premises were severely damaged during the tenancy. Liability for Damage
Tenants are liable for intentional damage caused by a person for whose actions they are responsible. In the Tribunal’s order dated 29 July 2025, the Tribunal found (in effect) that the tenant was responsible for the damage, either because the tenant caused the damage or (as the tenant explained) was responsible for the actions of unknown persons who were in the premises. The tenant asked me to reconsider this finding at the second hearing.
Section 41 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (tenant’s responsibility for actions of others) (the Act) provides: The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant. Where any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) intentionally or carelessly damages the premises while the tenant is in the premises, it shall be presumed that the tenant permitted that person to be in the premises unless the tenant proves that he or she took all reasonable steps to prevent that person from entering the premises or (as the case may require) to eject that person from the premises.
Section 41(1) imposes liability for any breach by someone in the premises with the tenant’s permission. The tenant said he allowed people to live in the garage until the landlord told him this was not permitted. He then asked these individuals to leave. Subsequently, other people (associates of the initial guests) started coming to the property and causing damage when the tenant was out. The tenant said he would come home and see damage. The tenant made no mention of damage having been caused by third parties in his emails to the landlord between February and July 2025, which focussed on his attempts to tidy up.
The tenant said he reported the damage to the Police and was given several opportunities to provide the Police reports. He did not mention this in his emails to the landlord until 24 June 2025, or the fact that his keys had been stolen. The premises may have been left unsecured for an unknown period. In my opinion, the tenant implicitly gave permission for other persons to be in the premises by not taking steps to remove them or prevent access and is therefore liable for their actions pursuant to section 41(1) of the Act.
Section 41(2) presumes the tenant has permitted someone to be in the premises in one specific instance, i.e., where the tenant is present when the person causes damage. While the tenant says the damage occurred when he was out, it is difficult to believe such severe damage only happened then.
Alternatively, I consider the tenant is liable on the basis that he permitted other persons to cause the damage, in breach of section 40(2)(a) of the Act. This does not depend on permission to be on the premises, or whether the tenant was there when the damage happened. The tenant knew someone was causing damage but took no steps to secure the premises, failed to tell the landlord what was happening, and in my opinion failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent entry or to have the trespassers removed. The tenant could have served a trespass notice, could have requested that the landlord change the locks, and could have insisted that the Police attend or that the landlord call the Police.
I am satisfied that it is in accordance with the substantial merits and justice of this matter that the tenant be held liable for the damage. Compensation for Damage
The insurance loss adjuster visited the property on 14 July 2025. The report noted: Upon inspecting the premises, the Insured found it in a severely damaged condition. Debris is scattered everywhere, decomposing food is present on the floor, there are holes in the walls, locks have been broken, the heat pump is compromised, human waste is found on every surface of the house, and it seems that fires have been set in the garage.
The loss adjuster’s report included a scope of works and estimated the claim at $65,000.00. The repairs required included: • Remove wall linings and replace doors. • Replace the carpet in the bedroom and lounge. • Replace skirting boards. • Replace the kitchen cabinet, splashback, and bench. • Replace the oven. • Tiles in the bathroom, laundry, and kitchen to be replaced if they cannot be cleaned.
The landlord has provided the following quotes: • From a builder for repairs totalling $47,524.26. The works include repairs to the framing, gib, doors, tiles, and windows, with a full bathroom and kitchen replacement. • From a tradesman for replacing the heat pump in the sum of $2,932.50. The landlord says the heat pump is not working. • From an electrician to replace the wiring in the sum of $16,942.95. In an email dated 30 July 2025, the electrician explained that the cabling had been damaged and many of the switches, power points and light fittings had also been damaged. To meet current standards the correct circuit protection at the switchboard would need to be installed. The appliances in the unit had been damaged beyond repair. The quote included a replacement stove, oven, and rangehood, as well as a hot water cylinder. • For replacement carpet in the lounge and bedroom in the sum of $1,745.60.
The measure of damages is the sum of money that will put the applicant in the position he would have been in if the contract had been performed (so far as money can do so). Assessment of compensation is essentially a question of fact. Where uncertainty makes it difficult to assess compensation, the Tribunal must do the best it can in the circumstances. The object is to provide fair and reasonable compensation.
The quotes for building repairs are not itemised in any detail, but the overall cost of repairs is in the same range as the loss adjuster’s estimate. It is unclear why the heat pump is not working. The outside unit is also damaged, according to the landlord, although this is difficult to see in the photographs.
I find that the building repairs are necessary because of the damage caused by the tenant and are reasonable in amount. The methamphetamine contamination (discussed below) provides a further reason why the carpet will have to be replaced. The electrical wiring, cooktop, oven, and the rangehood all require replacement because of damage.
I make an allowance for the cost of replacing the heat pump. There is some uncertainty as to why it is not working, and whether it has been physically damaged. While the loss adjuster made no comment suggesting it did not require replacement, it was not included in the repair summary. The landlord said there was no power going to the heat pump. This could indicate the problem is related to damage to the electrical wiring.
I also make an allowance of $2,500.00 for the hot water cylinder (my estimate of the cost of a replacement). This is not shown in any of the photographs, and it is unclear if this stopped working because of damage caused by the tenant. It is not mentioned by the loss adjuster. The landlord indicated it was 10-15 years old. It may simply have reached the end of its life.
It may be possible for the landlord to bring a further application in future for these losses if new evidence, not currently available, establishes that the tenant damaged these appliances/fixtures.
The tenant must be given credit for the bond of $1,400.00 which has already been refunded to the landlord by the Bond Centre as directed. Contamination
The premises were tested for methamphetamine on 31 July 2025 by way of a 10-sample composite. The total methamphetamine present in all the samples was 280 ug/100cm². There is evidence of manufacture according to the testing report, which included photographs of utensils. That is consistent with the very high level of contamination.
The evidence establishes that the tenant either used, or permitted the premises to be used, for the unlawful purpose of manufacturing, possessing, and/or using drugs, in breach of section 40(2)(b) of the Act. The tenant knew that the people he invited to live in the garage were drug-users. The extent of the contamination is suggestive of manufacture. It is unlikely this could have happened in a small unit without the tenant’s knowledge. I award the estimated methamphetamine remediation costs of $9,950.00 plus GST ($11,442.50). Filing Fee and Suppression
The landlord’s application has been successful. I award the filing fee.
Name suppression was not requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5261682 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 8 Pratt Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5261682 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 8 Pratt Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions