Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5480310 — Property damage
Decided 2 Jul 2026 · Published 2 Jul 2026 · Application 5480310
- Property damage
- Lost Rent
- Leaks
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
- [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlords] $14,815.16 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,630.92 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlords] immediately.
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.
- On 25 March 2026, under application 5469210, the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears of $650.00, power of $291.08, refund of $969.08 of the bond and the filing fee of $28.00. There is nothing owing from this Order.
- The landlords have applied compensation for damages, reimbursement of the filing fee and a refund of the remainder of the bond.
How much is owed for rent and power?
- The tenancy ended on 15 March 2026. The landlord provided rent records and power invoices which prove the amounts owing at the end of the tenancy.
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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
- The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
- The tenant did not return the keys.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
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 landlord has confirmed that the New Zealand Police are aware of this tenant fronting a cannabis growing syndicate and that she has rented several other properties in Auckland that have been used for the same purpose. The contact details and identification information provided by the tenant was found by the New Zealand Police to be fake.
- It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 for any person to have in their possession or consume any controlled drug and to allow any premises to be used for the commission of an offence under that Act and (sections 7 and 12). “cannabis” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act and is classified as either a Class B (cannabis oil, resin (hashish), and concentrated extracts) or C (cannabis plant, leaf, and seeds) drug depending on its form.
- Given the illegal use of the premise that has caused the damage to the premise, I am satisfied the following damage was caused intentionally during the tenancy from the cannabis growing operation that was being run from the premise by a drug growing syndicate: a. Damage to the carpet that required repair/replacement; b. Conversion of the mains power box to connect directly to the mains power source and bypass the premise’s switch board through the laundry wall; c. Plumbing modifications for optimising drug growing capability throughout the premise; and d. Extensive damage to walls, ceilings and floorboards from holes made to create ventilation systems with activated carbon filters to neutralize strong odours, control temperature and humidity, and prevent the spread of airborne mould spores. Cannabis plants are highly aromatic, producing strong, skunk-like scents during the flowering stage. Carbon filters are essential for odour management, trapping these terpene and volatile organic compound (VOC) molecules in the porous carbon bed so the air exhausted from the house is completely scent-free, thus preventing detection of the drug growing operation.
- The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. 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 [The applicants] have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
- The landlords apply for non-publication of their name and identifying details.
- The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
- The landlords have substantially succeeded in their proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlords conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
- Non-publication is ordered.