Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5321680 — Property damage at 30 Hoskins Avenue, Hillsborough, Auckland 1042
Decided 30 Oct 2025 · Published 30 Oct 2025 · Application 5321680
- Property damage
- Rent arrears
Order
- [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Ihome Property Management Limited As Agent For Ttyl Family Trust $17,365.38 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- This was a fixed-term tenancy commencing on the 20th of March 2025 and due to end on the 18th of March 2026. Police executed a search warrant on the 21st of June 2025, with documents provided showing the warrant. The landlord was notified of the search on the 22nd of June and immediately informed the property manager, who conducted an inspection.
- Evidence has been provided showing that the premises were used as a cannabis grow house. The landlord is seeking compensation for rent arrears, water arrears, damage repair costs, replacement of locks, cleaning, and lawn maintenance.
- The specific claims are as follows: a) $6,600.00 for rent arrears to the 20th of August 2025, b) $186.71 for water arrears to the 24th of July 2025, c) $250.00 for replacement of a garage remote, d) $690.00 for a house cleaning fee, e) $908.50 for rubbish bin rental, f) $1,000.00 for rubbish removal, g) $920.00 for table connection with inspection, h) $350.00 for lock change, i) $120.00 for lawn mowing, and j) $40,684.40 for interior repair and painting. The burden of proof:
- In any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. This means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims on the balance of probabilities, that is, to show that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the burden of proof. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents, and photographs are important tools in discharging that burden.
- As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC TT233/02), in practical terms this means that: “... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
- I do not need to be completely certain, but I must be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all of the evidence presented, including any oral evidence given during the hearing. I must then weigh that evidence to determine what is more likely to be true.
Is the respondent liable for the rent and water arrears?
- I am satisfied that the tenant breached the terms of the fixed-term tenancy by abandoning the property, and also by using and permitting the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose, in breach of section 40(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- I am satisfied that the rent summary provided is an accurate record of the rent arrears owing to the 20th of August 2025, and that it is reasonable for the landlord to claim rent to this date, given the breach of the tenancy agreement and its early termination. The amount sought is therefore awarded.
- I am also satisfied that the water rates arrears showing to the 24th of July 2025 are the liability of the tenant, that the records are accurate, and this amount is awarded as well. Is the respondent liable for the garage remote replacement and the lock replacement?
- Section 40(1)(e)(iv) requires the tenant, at the conclusion of the tenancy, to return to the landlord all keys. I am satisfied that the tenant did not return the garage remote or the lock keys, and therefore the landlord was justified in incurring those costs. The amount of $350.00 for lock changes is awarded, as well as $250.00 for the replacement of the garage remote. Is the respondent liable for the cleaning, lawn mowing and rubbish removal costs?
- Section 40(1)(e)(iii) require the tenant to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, and to arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish at the conclusion of the tenancy.
- In respect of the rubbish costs individually invoiced, I am satisfied that these costs were incurred, being two bins for $908.50 and $1,000.00 for the removal of rubbish. I am satisfied that these costs are reasonable, properly incurred, and they are awarded.
- With regard to the lawn mowing fee, I am satisfied with the landlord’s evidence that the lawns were not maintained and that they were required to engage a contractor to remedy this. The amount of $120.00 sought for lawn mowing is therefore awarded.
- With regard to the house cleaning fee, the invoice is not named, there is no company name, and it is not clear who the landlord paid. It is also, in my view, unlikely that any cleaning was undertaken, as the evidence shows that the landlord engaged contractors to renovate the property immediately thereafter. It does not therefore make sense that cleaning was completed, and the evidence does not satisfy that it was on the balance of probabilities.
- The claim for $690.00 for cleaning is dismissed.
Is the respondent liable for the electricity Invoice?
- With regard to the main cable reconnection and inspection invoice, I am satisfied that the tenant intentionally damaged the wiring to the property in breach of their obligations under section 40(2)(a) and that they did so in the course of using the property for an unlawful purpose, namely operating it as a marijuana grow house, in breach of their obligations under section 40(2)(b).
- However, the landlord has provided another invoice which also includes charges for the cost of replacement and repair of this wiring. During the hearing, the landlord offered to call the other contractor, who stated that they replaced all the wiring. Therefore, I cannot be satisfied that this invoice was done as on the basis of the landlords evidence another contractor did the work.
- The claim is dismissed.
Is the remaining invoice the liability of the respondent?
- There is no question in my mind that the tenant caused damage to the property as a result of their using the tenancy address for an unlawful purpose, namely to grow marijuana. Any damage caused to the property is the liability of the respondent.
- However, the invoice provided by the owner is from a company that priced the job, but never completed any work. Furthermore, the description of the invoice was for full decoration and repainting of the entire house. It is extensive in its description of the works carried out, much of which does not appear to be connected to the damage caused by the tenant, such as the installation of new roller blinds and general renovation of the house.
- It is unfortunate because, had the invoices been accurate and for costs of remedying the actual damage, the Tribunal would have had no issue in attributing liability to the tenant. But as the applicant was questioned to understand the nature of the works that were completed, it became clearer that this invoice could not be relied upon and whether the landlord took this unfortunate event as an opportunity to improve the property.
- During the hearing, the applicant offered to call the contractor. This was because I had questions about whether this contractor had actually completed the work. This arose because they provided screenshots showing that they had paid a different contractor. The contractor answered the phone and said that they had replaced the electrical wiring and that the works they completed were at the request of the landlord. When asked about why certain things were done, such as the replacement of wallpaper and whether it was due to damage, the contractor replied that they had done what Anna and the owner told them to do and was not able to comment on what the rationale for replacement was.
- There were other costs such as the replacement of the oven and a dishwasher for which the landlord could provide no clarity. Other costs such as rubbish removal were invoiced elsewhere.
- These contradictions and lack of clarity at the hearing including a promised invoice, was discussed. I told the applicant that, because I was doubtful about the reliability of the evidence, they needed to provide the invoice from the actual contractor immediately after the hearing. After the hearing, the landlord provided some of the invoices requested alongside additional evidence. They forwarded an email dated today, after the hearing, showing that the contractor had undertaken particular works.
- I cannot rely on this evidence, as it was generated post-hearing, and I am doubtful of its reliability. I therefore cannot give it much credence or rely upon it. I am satisfied that the landlord did incur some expense, but I am not satisfied that it is at the level sought or that the evidence provided is reliable. Accordingly, I have decided to award 20 percent of the cost claimed. The filing fee:
- The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in their application, and therefore I decline to award the application filing fee. H Ben Fayed 28 October 2025