How much money was awarded in case 5507478?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5507478?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5507478?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13694467-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5507478?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5507478?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5507478?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13694467-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

15 Riverton Drive, Randwick Park, Auckland 2105 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5507478 — Healthy homes

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5507478 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

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 tenancy of Chuyen Hoi Le at 15 Riverton Drive, Randwick Park, Auckland 2105 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], effective 11:59pm on 10 May 2026.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The applicant/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by videoconference. The tenants did not attend and weren’t able to be contacted by phone.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenants’ obligations and for the bond to be released to him.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach of a tenant’s obligations where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. 1

The landlord arranged an inspection of the grounds at the premises on 10 May 2026. While there he became suspicious about activities inside. The police were called. Photographs provided by the police taken the next day show that a sophisticated and extensive cannabis growing operation as being conducted inside the home. Artificial lighting, ventilation and partitions had been installed.

I understand the tenants were arrested.

The tenants’ use of the premises for that purpose is unlawful and the alterations made to the premises to enable them to conduct the growing operation constitute fundamental breaches of their obligations. Those breaches are incapable of remedy.

It would be inequitable to the landlord not to Order termination of the tenancy which should be effective from the point of discovery of the tenants’ breaches. Should the bond be released to the landlord

The landlord’s final losses are yet to be fully quantified. Repair and reinstatement work is still to be done. Loss of rents can’t be calculated until the premises are reinstated and they can be rented out again.

The landlord has provided evidence from his insurer that he has accepted an offer of discharge under which he has been paid $29,180.00 being: a. $25,000.00 – policy limit for intentional tenant damage; less b. $550.00 – claim excess; plus c. $4,680.00 – maximum loss of rents cover (6 weeks); plus d. $50.00 – change of locks allowance $29,180.00 TOTAL

A quote provided for building works (which does not include significant electrical work required) is for $33,695.00.

The evidence provided satisfies me that the loss caused to the landlord through the tenants’ breach will exceed the amount of the bond held. The bond should be released to the landlord. 1 s. 56(1) RTA

This Order does not make findings determining the landlord’s losses at this stage. Once the landlord’s costs are finalised he may, if he chooses, bring a further application for compensation. If he does, the landlord’s receipt of the bond must of course be taken into account.

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 tenancy of Chuyen Hoi Le at 15 Riverton Drive, Randwick Park, Auckland 2105 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], effective 11:59pm on 10 May 2026.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The applicant/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by videoconference. The tenants did not attend and weren’t able to be contacted by phone.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenants’ obligations and for the bond to be released to him.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach of a tenant’s obligations where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. 1

I understand the tenants were arrested.

A quote provided for building works (which does not include significant electrical work required) is for $33,695.00.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5507478 — Healthy homes at 15 Riverton Drive, Randwick Park, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5507478 — Healthy homes at 15 Riverton Drive, Randwick Park, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions