Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5267559 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1K, 508 Queen Street, Auckland Central, Auckland
Decided 19 Dec 2025 · Published 19 Dec 2025 · Application 5267559
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $2,014.74
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $2,014.74
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lock/key replacement | $367.74 | Lock/key replacement | |
| Rubbish removal | $920.00 | Rubbish removal | |
| Door repair | $700.00 | ay $200 from this invoice towards the door repair making a total for the repair $700.00. | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $27.00 | Filing fee reimbursement |
Order
- [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Viaduct City Rentals Limited $2,014.74 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Lock/key replacement$367.74 Rubbish removal$920.00 Door repair$700.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$2,014.74 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,014.74
Reasons
- Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing on 19 November 2025. There was no appearance for the respondent tenant.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant rented an apartment in November 2020 from City Sales. In September 2024 there was a change in landlord agent to Viaduct City Rentals Limited. Notice of this was sent to the tenant on 2 September 2024.
- The tenancy ended on 6 February 2025 following notice from the landlord.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The tenant did not remove all rubbish.
- The tenant did not return the tags and keys and the premises were locked with a lock added by the tenant during the tenancy. The landlord had to call a locksmith and discovered the keys locked inside the premises.
- The amounts ordered are proved. An exit inspection report and invoices have been provided.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
- 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
- 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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
- 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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
- 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 claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
- Damage to door (a)The landlord provided a routine inspection report dated 2022 which showed that there was no damage to the door and an exit inspection report which recorded significant damage to the door and frame. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. (b)The landlord provided two invoices for the repair. One invoice for $500 for the door repair and another for patching and painting. The second invoice for $417.81 also includes light and light fitting repairs for which the landlord had insufficient evidence. I therefore order the tenant to pay $200 from this invoice towards the door repair making a total for the repair $700.00.
- Methamphetamine (a)The landlord claimed that the premises were damaged by methamphetamine and seeks $11,857.50 for testing and decontamination from the tenant. (b) The onus is on the landlord to provide sufficient evidence to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities. As methamphetamine damage cannot be seen the Tribunal is reliant on scientific evidence to support the claim for damage. (c)The Tribunal has well established precedent law that in order to prove that methamphetamine damage occurred during the tenancy the landlord must produce an entry methamphetamine test to establish if methamphetamine was present prior to the tenancy commencing and an exit test. (d)In this case no entry test was undertaken. The landlord seeks to rely on evidence that soon after the tenancy began drug detector dogs went through the apartment building on 8 December 2020 and did not record an indication of methamphetamine outside this unit. (e)The landlord provided records of testing undertaken on 8 January 2025 which recorded high levels of methamphetamine at the premises. (f) On 30 January 2025 following the result of this test the landlord gave the tenant 7 days’ notice to vacate the premises. The landlord provided a copy of this notice and a copy of the tenant’s email reply dated 31 January 2025 which states “I have been advised by a lawyer that you need to provide the previous meth test results in order to be able to terminate the tenancy as I have not contributed to this issue I'm not a meth user”. The tenancy ended in any event on 6 February 2025. (g) I find that the landlord has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities for the following reasons: (i) There was no entry methamphetamine test undertaken in spite of the indicators that there are problems with drugs in this apartment building. (ii) The drug dog detector test dated 8 December 2020 is not sufficient evidence. The report records that the test was a time limited screening of a 10- storey building limited to one hour. The report records general areas of indication and interest but does not record specific results for these premises. (iii) Although the drug dog detector test may lead to suspicions this is not sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities the condition of the inside of these premises at the commencement of the tenancy as no testing was undertaken. (iv) The tenant has denied the use of drugs to the landlord. (v) There was no involvement of the Police at these premises.
- Therefore, I find that the landlord has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is liable for methamphetamine contamination and the claim is dismissed. Filing fee
- Because Viaduct City Rentals Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s40(1), s40(2), s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
- VIADUCT CITY RENTALS LIMITED (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5267559 about?
The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Viaduct City Rentals Limited
How much money was awarded in case 5267559?
Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $367.74 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $920.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5267559?
The primary dispute was Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5267559?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12738694-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.
For landlords & property managers
Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.
Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.