Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5312020 — Property damage at 40C Schnapper Rock Road, Schnapper Rock, Auckland
Decided 5 Aug 2025 · Published 5 Aug 2025 · Application 5312020
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
Order
- The tenancy of Kam Pom at 40C Schnapper Rock Road, Schnapper Rock, Auckland 0632 is terminated, and possession is granted to Chia-Chi Chen and Yanyu Chen, at 5:00pm on Tuesday 5 August 2025.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,670.00 () to Chia-Chi Chen and Yanyu Chen immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
- Chia-Chi Chen and Yanyu Chen must take any of the tenant’s personal documents that have been left at the premises to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.
- The landlords may dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit.
Reasons
- The landlords attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
- I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
- The landlords have applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Should the tenancy be terminated?
- The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
- However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
- The tenant has breached their obligations by: a. Growing marijuana plants throughout the premise; b. Modifying the power supply to the premise so that the tenant did not have to pay for power consumption; c. Causing significant damage to the walls, ceilings and flooring from the tenant’s extensive cannabis growing operation; d. Using the premise for an unlawful purpose, being to grow at least 100 marijuana plants in pots throughout the premise.
- The breach is not capable of remedy because the New Zealand Police were alerted to the unlawful activity and raided the premise on 22 July 2025 and found the cannabis growing operation. The tenant has abandoned the premise prior to the raid and has not been contactable since the raid. The mobile phone number provided to the landlord is no longer operational.
- I am satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The tenancy is terminated from 5:00pm tonight. Disposal of Goods
- The landlords have applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy, being: a. A black Toyota hatchback, with a registration number LJJ890, that is not warranted or registered, has a broken bumper and damaged ignition; and b. Significant amounts of contaminated and damaged cannabis growing apparatuses/equipment and some other rubbish/damaged belongings.
- The landlords are unable to contact the tenant and has been cautioned by the New Zealand Police not to try to contact the tenant.
- It is not practicable for the landlords to the return the goods to the tenant. The value of the goods set out in paragraph [10] (a) and (b) above is below the cost of storing, transporting and selling them. Therefore, the landlord may dispose of the goods. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Initial assessment of damage costs
- The New Zealand Police have confirmed the damage to the premise caused by the tenant having tampered with the electrical work and connecting the house to mains power illegally has created a high risk of fire. The landlord has had to have this addressed urgently and sought a refund of the bond to cover this initial cost. The remedial costs will be far greater than the bond amount and will be the subject of a vacated damage claim, after the landlord has enquired whether the remedial work will be covered by their insurance company.
- The bond is to be refunded to the landlords in full to cover these initial costs and the filing fee. Reimbursement of filing fee
- Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
- Because Chia-Chi Chen and Yanyu Chen have wholly succeeded with their claim I must reimburse the filing fee.