What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4807619?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,550.00 (6428416-007) to Renee

How much money was awarded in case 4807619?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4807619?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4807619?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10345410-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4807619?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,550.00 (6428416-007) to Renee

How much money was awarded in case 4807619?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4807619?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4807619?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10345410-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

32 Hogans Road, Glenfield, Auckland 0629 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4807619 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

This matter was before me for case a conference hearing and was conducted by telephone.

The landlord attended.

The named tenant did not attend. The hearing proceeded in their absence.

The landlord has applied for compensation for fire damage to the premises and payment over of the bond.

Although, the application is made against “Lam Thi Nguyen”, it is probable that that is not the true name of the person who signed the tenancy agreement. The person who signed the tenancy agreement was part of a criminal conspiracy to cultivate cannabis. It is quite probable that the signatory did not even live in the premises.

The cannabis operation at the premises was discovered when the house was set on fire and the authorities investigated. The Police recently emailed the landlord about the tenant’s whereabouts: Unfortunately we haven’t been able to track down your tenants. The names on the tenancy agreement and application are false and the drivers licence number they provided doesn’t exist, the cell phone number is a prepaid account that isn’t registered to anyone. We believe that the cannabis grow at your house was operated by a Vietnamese crime syndicate that was responsible for approximately 50 similar properties across Auckland.

The application was filed more than two months after the tenancy ended so the usual rules of service do not apply, and the tenant should be actually served. However, given it is very unlikely the landlord can locate the purported tenant in these circumstances, service is dispensed with pursuant to s 91B(2)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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. 1

The landlord provided photographs proving the damage, which is substantial. To date, the landlord says she has spent about $10,000.00 repairing the fire damage.

Ms Fougere says that on the advice of her lawyer, she has not applied for cover under her insurance policy due to non-compliance with the terms of the policy. She understands the claim would be refused and that would place a black mark on her record for future insurance cover, so it is better not to apply at all.

The fire damage is patently more than fair wear and tear, and the “tenant” has not disproved liability for the damage.

Liability is proven.

I am going to take the pragmatic approach of ordering that the bond be released to the landlord. 2 It appears the tenant is a “straw man”, without any legal identity. It does not make sense to prolong the matter because the landlord is unlikely to be able to locate this person. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 2 See RTA, s 85. Addendum

Should the Police locate the “tenant”, or should the tenant resurface, the landlord is at liberty to bring another claim for the outstanding loss.

Reasons

This matter was before me for case a conference hearing and was conducted by telephone.

The landlord attended.

The named tenant did not attend. The hearing proceeded in their absence.

The landlord has applied for compensation for fire damage to the premises and payment over of the bond.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord provided photographs proving the damage, which is substantial. To date, the landlord says she has spent about $10,000.00 repairing the fire damage.

The fire damage is patently more than fair wear and tear, and the “tenant” has not disproved liability for the damage.

Liability is proven.

Should the Police locate the “tenant”, or should the tenant resurface, the landlord is at liberty to bring another claim for the outstanding loss.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4807619 — Tenancy dispute at 32 Hogans Road, Glenfield, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4807619 — Tenancy dispute at 32 Hogans Road, Glenfield, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions