Cannabis-growing tenants torch million-dollar rentals



[ad_1]

An Auckland landlord was left with a $ 400,000 repair bill after occupants of his million dollar rental ran a cannabis growing operation that sparked a major fire.

However, tenants will now contribute just $ 800 to help directly with the insurer’s repair costs, a recent Leasing Court decision showed.

However, tenants will have to shell out another $ 22,000 to cover unpaid rent and other minor expenses incurred by the property owner.

Tenant Hiep Tuan Luu said at the court hearing that he did not know that the house was being used to grow cannabis because he had not been living there.

Instead, he had illegally sublet it to a friend.

That ultimately led to Flat Bush’s house, which has a council valuation of $ 1.1 million, catching fire on November 30 of last year.

The fire severely damaged one of the rental rooms, as well as the cavity in the ceiling, the bathroom, and the hallway.

Smoke, soot, and heat damaged the rest of the property.

Fire crews who rushed to put out the flames also quickly discovered something else.

Two of the rental rooms had been set up as cannabis growing operations with additional lighting and ventilation equipment installed, New Zealand Police and Fire & Emergencies confirmed.

They were fueled by a failed household effort to install additional wiring to the electrical supply, fire investigators said.

This had been connected “to the electricity supply before the meter and bypassed the circuit board, causing the wiring to be overloaded,” Lease Court Judge Mike Edison said.

Investigators later concluded that “the fire was caused by a poorly wired electrical bypass to power the cannabis growing operation.”

Tenant Luu claimed to have no knowledge of the cause of the fire.

He had initially signed up to rent the property on a fixed-term lease from July 6, 2019 to July 6, 2020 together with fellow tenant Pham Thuy Thi.

However, Luu told the court that he heard that Thi withdrew from the agreement shortly after it was signed.

That meant Luu couldn’t pay the rent on his own, he said.

As a result, on July 9 of last year, he moved in and sublet the property.

“Mr. Luu says he sublet the property to help a friend, who unknowingly put him in this situation,” said awardee Edison.

“He says he did not know that cannabis was grown on the property, nor did he know that the sub-tenants were involved with drugs.”

Luu said at the hearing that he would call the property to collect the rent, which Luu set at a higher rate than the one he paid to the landlord, from the subtenants, but that he would not enter.

He said he only came into the rental during an inspection last October with property managers Barfoot & Thompson because his friend had traveled to Vietnam and asked him to be there.

Judge Edison accepted that the Barfoot & Thompson inspection report showed there were no signs of a drug operation at the home at the time of the October inspection.

However, Edison said that Luu and Thi were still responsible for what happened at the property.

Luu had never tried to remove Thi’s name from the lease, nor had he asked permission to sublet the rent, Edison said.

“The purpose of requiring tenants to obtain the landlord’s permission before assigning, subletting or disposing of possession is to allow the regular landlord who lives in the property,” he said.

“This protects the owner from the property being used inappropriately or by an undesirable occupant.

“In this case, the owner was deprived of that opportunity.”

Because the rental owner had damage insurance worth an estimated $ 400,000, Edison ordered Luu and Thi to pay only a contribution of $ 800 for the repairs.

This would cover the homeowner’s $ 800 insurance overpayment, Edison said.

With six months remaining on the fixed-term lease, Edison also ordered Luu and Thi to pay $ 21,188 in unpaid rent.

Luu claimed it was unfair to ask him to pay the rent because the rental owner’s insurer had already paid $ 20,000 in lost rental income.

However, Edison said it was “a general principle” that insurance payments did not reduce renters’ responsibility to pay rent.

[ad_2]