What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317900 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $15,109.10 immediately, calculated as shown in

How much money was awarded in case 5317900?

Cleaning: $343.85 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $17,037.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317900?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317900?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12863378-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317900 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $15,109.10 immediately, calculated as shown in

How much money was awarded in case 5317900?

Cleaning: $343.85 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $17,037.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317900?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317900?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12863378-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

13 Kereru Place, Half Moon Bay, Auckland 2012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5317900 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5317900 — net $15,109.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Exemplary damages	$900.00	Exemplary damages
Repairs	$17,037.25	Repairs
Meth testing/Cleaning	$343.85	Meth testing/Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$15,109.10
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$15,109.10

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $15,109.10 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 () to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not attend. The Landlord was represented by his wife Ms Chen.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent arrears?

The Tribunal notes that the fixed-term tenancy was due to end on 23 February 2026; however the tenancy ended on 1 August 2025. The Landlord submitted that a new tenancy commenced after that date and sought rent from 1 August 2025 onwards. The Landlord was unable to specify the date on which the alleged new tenancy commenced. A rent summary was provided in support; however, it did not clarify the commencement of any subsequent tenancy and what payments were received in between tenancies.
For this reason, the claim for rent arrears is dismissed.

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 occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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). See section 49B(3)(a) 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to the walls, windows, doors, carpets, outdoor areas, electrical wiring, and ceilings, arising from the Tenant’s use of the property for the cultivation of cannabis. The Landlord produced a copy of a police search warrant dated 28 July 2025, photographs of the premises prior to the commencement of the tenancy, and photographs depicting the subsequent damage. The evidence shows holes in the ceilings, cannabis leaves on the carpets, and white plastic covering the floors. The Landlord submitted that it appeared every bedroom and the lounge had been used for cannabis cultivation.
The Landlord further explained that they were unable to obtain insurance cover for the damage, partly because they had been unable to carry out mid-tenancy inspections. When inspections were requested, the Tenant repeatedly stated they were overseas or dealing with a family emergency, and as a result, inspections did not occur.
The Tribunal finds that the damage is far beyond fair wear and tear. The Tenant has not provided any evidence to rebut the presumption of liability.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Methamphetamine testing
The Landlord also sought reimbursement for the cost of methamphetamine testing undertaken following the police search of the property. The test results confirmed that no methamphetamine was detected. An invoice for the testing was provided.
Having considered the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the costs incurred by the Landlord were reasonable in the circumstances, particularly given the confirmed cannabis cultivation at the premises. The invoice provided substantiates the expenditure.
The amounts ordered are proved. Exemplary damages
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by cultivating cannabis plants at the property.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is unlawful to produce cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975
The tenant cultivated cannabis at the property. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Landlord stated that Police had advised them the Tenant may have left the country and that the identification provided by the Tenant was false. The Landlord believed the Tenant may have been part of a syndicate renting properties for the purpose of cultivating cannabis. The Landlord described the resulting impact as severe hardship for themselves and their spouse. They were required to borrow money from family and friends to carry out repairs, as the insurance company declined cover. The Landlord explained that they had to work seven days a week to meet the mortgage payments and fund the repairs, and that the situation caused significant emotional distress given the care and trust they had placed in the Tenant.
Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the Tenant intended to commit the unlawful act and that the impact on the Landlord was substantial. The way the property was left at the end of the tenancy shows the Tenant was very organised in their cultivation of cannabis. Accordingly, an award of exemplary damages in the amount of $900.00 is justified.
As [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim the Tenant shall reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5317900 — net $15,109.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Exemplary damages	$900.00	Exemplary damages
Repairs	$17,037.25	Repairs
Meth testing/Cleaning	$343.85	Meth testing/Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$15,109.10
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$15,109.10

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $15,109.10 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 () to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not attend. The Landlord was represented by his wife Ms Chen.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent arrears?

The Tribunal notes that the fixed-term tenancy was due to end on 23 February 2026; however the tenancy ended on 1 August 2025. The Landlord submitted that a new tenancy commenced after that date and sought rent from 1 August 2025 onwards. The Landlord was unable to specify the date on which the alleged new tenancy commenced. A rent summary was provided in support; however, it did not clarify the commencement of any subsequent tenancy and what payments were received in between tenancies.
For this reason, the claim for rent arrears is dismissed.

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 occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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). See section 49B(3)(a) 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to the walls, windows, doors, carpets, outdoor areas, electrical wiring, and ceilings, arising from the Tenant’s use of the property for the cultivation of cannabis. The Landlord produced a copy of a police search warrant dated 28 July 2025, photographs of the premises prior to the commencement of the tenancy, and photographs depicting the subsequent damage. The evidence shows holes in the ceilings, cannabis leaves on the carpets, and white plastic covering the floors. The Landlord submitted that it appeared every bedroom and the lounge had been used for cannabis cultivation.
The Landlord further explained that they were unable to obtain insurance cover for the damage, partly because they had been unable to carry out mid-tenancy inspections. When inspections were requested, the Tenant repeatedly stated they were overseas or dealing with a family emergency, and as a result, inspections did not occur.
The Tribunal finds that the damage is far beyond fair wear and tear. The Tenant has not provided any evidence to rebut the presumption of liability.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Methamphetamine testing
The Landlord also sought reimbursement for the cost of methamphetamine testing undertaken following the police search of the property. The test results confirmed that no methamphetamine was detected. An invoice for the testing was provided.
Having considered the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the costs incurred by the Landlord were reasonable in the circumstances, particularly given the confirmed cannabis cultivation at the premises. The invoice provided substantiates the expenditure.
The amounts ordered are proved. Exemplary damages
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by cultivating cannabis plants at the property.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is unlawful to produce cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975
The tenant cultivated cannabis at the property. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Landlord stated that Police had advised them the Tenant may have left the country and that the identification provided by the Tenant was false. The Landlord believed the Tenant may have been part of a syndicate renting properties for the purpose of cultivating cannabis. The Landlord described the resulting impact as severe hardship for themselves and their spouse. They were required to borrow money from family and friends to carry out repairs, as the insurance company declined cover. The Landlord explained that they had to work seven days a week to meet the mortgage payments and fund the repairs, and that the situation caused significant emotional distress given the care and trust they had placed in the Tenant.
Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the Tenant intended to commit the unlawful act and that the impact on the Landlord was substantial. The way the property was left at the end of the tenancy shows the Tenant was very organised in their cultivation of cannabis. Accordingly, an award of exemplary damages in the amount of $900.00 is justified.
As [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim the Tenant shall reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317900 — Property damage at 13 Kereru Place, Half Moon Bay, Auckland 2012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317900 — Property damage at 13 Kereru Place, Half Moon Bay, Auckland 2012

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent arrears?

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent arrears?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions