He then asked those people to leave, and after that, their “associates” started coming to the property and causing damage when he wasn’t there.
He said he would come home and see the damage.
However, during the tenancy, he made no mention of the third parties in emails he sent to the landlord between February and July 2025.
The emails had focused 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, but again, he had not mentioned this in his emails to the landlord until June 24. He’d also failed to mention the fact that his keys had been stolen.
The recent Tenancy Tribunal decision noted the “premises may have been left unsecured for an unknown period”.
Tribunal adjudicator Mike Edison found the tenant “implicitly gave permission for other persons to be in the premises by not taking steps to remove them or prevent access” and was liable for their actions under the Residential Tenancies Act.
“While the tenant says the damage occurred when he was out, it is difficult to believe such severe damage only happened then,” Edison said.
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the tenant’s explanation that others had caused the damage “when he was out”. Photo / 123RF
Even if that had been the case, Edison considered the tenant was also liable on the basis that he permitted other persons to cause the damage.
“This does not depend on permission to be on the premises, or whether the tenant was there when the damage happened,” Edison said.
“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.”
Edison found the tenant could have served a trespass notice, requested the landlord change the locks, insisted the police attend, or that the landlord call the police.
Given all of that, Edison found the tenant should be held liable for the damage.
Building repairs and meth decontamination
According to the ruling, the property was a small one-bedroom unit with an open-plan lounge and kitchen, a separate bathroom, and a garage.
The tenant moved out on July 7, and an insurance loss adjuster went to the property on July 14.
The assessor said in order to remedy the damage, the wall linings would need to be removed and the doors replaced.
They also said the carpet needed replacing in the bedroom and lounge. The skirting boards, kitchen cabinet, splashback, bench and oven all had to be replaced.
The assessor said the tiles in the bathroom, laundry, and kitchen would need to be replaced if they couldn’t be cleaned.
The landlord provided a quote from a builder for repairs totalling $47,524.
This included repairs to the framing, gib, doors, tiles, and windows, with a full bathroom and kitchen replacement.
An electrician quoted $16,942 to replace the wiring.
In an email dated July 30, the electrician explained the cabling had been damaged, and many of the switches, power points and light fittings had also been damaged.
All the appliances at the property had been “damaged beyond repair” and the quote included a replacement stove, oven, and rangehood, as well as a hot water cylinder.
Replacement carpet in the lounge and bedroom was quoted at $1745.
The property was tested for methamphetamine on July 31, by way of a 10-sample composite.
The total methamphetamine present in all the samples was 280 ug/100cm sq.
There was evidence of manufacture, according to the testing report, which included photographs of utensils.
“That is consistent with the very high level of contamination,” Edison said.
“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 [Residential Tenancies] Act.”
Edison said the tenant knew 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.”
Edison ordered $11,442.50 be paid for methamphetamine decontamination.
In total, Quach had to pay $73,782.20.
The only item the tenant didn’t have to foot the bill for was the hot water cylinder, as it was “unclear if this stopped working because of damage caused by the tenant”.
“The landlord indicated it was 10-15 years old. It may simply have reached the end of its life,” Edison said.
Hannah Bartlett is a Tauranga-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She previously covered court and local government for the Nelson Mail, and before that was a radio reporter at Newstalk ZB.