What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4447562 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4447562?

Cleaning: $425.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $134.78 awarded to landlord; Patch Holes: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,196.83 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $22.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4447562?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4447562?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9229928-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4447562 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4447562?

Cleaning: $425.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $134.78 awarded to landlord; Patch Holes: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,196.83 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $22.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4447562?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4447562?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9229928-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4447562 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4447562 — Cleanliness | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4447562 — net $1,987.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal: Skip hire and labour	$1,196.83	Rubbish removal: Skip hire and labour
Cleaning: Including carpet cleaning	$425.50	Cleaning: Including carpet cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$134.78	Lawns and Garden work
Key replacement: Replace garage remote	$138.00	Key replacement: Replace garage remote
Window repairs: Glass to front door	$22.29	Window repairs: Glass to front door
Repairs: Patch holes	$50.00	Repairs: Patch holes
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,987.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,987.84

Claims and awards for application 4447562 — net $1,987.84 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rubbish removal: Skip hire and labour

Amount: $1,196.83
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: Skip hire and labour

Cleaning: Including carpet cleaning

Amount: $425.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: Including carpet cleaning

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $134.78
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Key replacement: Replace garage remote

Amount: $138.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Key replacement: Replace garage remote

Window repairs: Glass to front door

Amount: $22.29
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs: Glass to front door

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Property damage Lawns And Garden Work Rubbish Removal

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 landlord’s claim for rent arrears is withdrawn.
The landlord’s claim for damage to glass in the shed and for replacement locks is dismissed.
Ngahoe Bloxham-Peretiaki must pay $1,987.84 [the landlord/s] immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Only the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend. She was telephoned prior to the hearing by the Tribunal but did not answer. Service
The application was filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy, so the usual service rules no longer apply.
The application should be served either personally on the tenant, delivered to someone over the age of 16 living at address where the tenant now lives, or by post to an address provided by the tenant within two months before the application was made. See section 91A(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The application was not served in accordance with these requirements.
Around the same time the application was being made the landlord says he telephoned the tenant’s mother, who is listed as the tenant’s agent on the tenancy agreement. She confirmed that the tenant was living with her and provided an address. This is the address the application was sent to. The application was also sent to the tenant by way of the email set out in the tenancy agreement and SMS alerts were sent.
The tenant would have known that a claim was likely because she gave the landlord a handwritten note saying she would be responsible for the cost of the disposal of items left by her that were not removed by a specified date. As set out below, the tenant did not dispose of the items.
The landlord may apply to the Tribunal for a direction that the application is to be served by some other means likely to bring it to the tenant’s notice. Alternatively, the landlord may apply to the Tribunal for a direction that service be dispensed with in accordance with s 91B Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In these circumstances I direct that the application be treated as served on the tenant as at the address provided by her mother. This is likely to have brought the application to the tenant’s attention. The procedure that has been followed to obtain the tenant’s new address is similar to that set out at s91A(2)(c) RTA (delivering it to the place where the tenant now lives and giving it to any person appearing to be aged 16 years or older who appears to be residing at that place and who confirms that the tenant resides there).

How much is owed for rent?

This tenancy was terminated and rent arrears ordered in an earlier order. The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is withdrawn.

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.

Were all personal belongings and rubbish removed?

The tenant did not remove all of her items and rubbish. The landlord arranged for items to be removed from the premises and for them to be disposed of. There was a written agreement with the tenant that the landlord could do this after a specified date if they had not been removed and that she would bear the cost.
The disposal involved the hire of two skips ($452.32 plus $308.40 plus GST) and labour of 8 hours to throw the items away (at $35 per hour plus GST). This totals $1,196.83 including GST.
I am satisfied that the photographs provided support the effort required. This claim is awarded in full.

Were the premises left reasonably clean and tidy?

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy inside both inside and out.
The landlord sought $280.00 (plus GST) for the cleaning of the property generally, $180.00 (plus GST) for the steam cleaning of ceilings and walls and $90.00 (plus GST) for carpet cleaning.
Having viewed the photographs of the property I am satisfied that the claim to undertake the general clean and to clean the carpets is reasonable and I award this in full ($425.50 including GST).
I make no award in relation to the steam cleaning of the walls and ceilings. There was insufficient evidence to support this claim. This work would have more likely than not have taken the premises to a state better than the tenant was required to return it in. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls and ceilings. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that the can re- tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
The landlord also sought $134.78 in relation to lawn work and weed strimming in the garden. The garden was left over-grown and was not reasonably tidy. The sum claimed is reasonable. The amount ordered is proven.

Were all keys returned?

The landlord says that the tenant did not return the keys when he asked her to do this during a discussion about her removing her items from the premises.
By this stage the landlord had already changed the locks. The landlord says that, despite the tenancy only terminating the day before the locks were changed, the tenant had already left the property some time ago. The landlord says he knew this because the cards he had left for her had not been moved.
I dismiss the claim in relation to the changing of the locks. This is because it is not clear what keys were given to the tenant at the start of the tenancy. There is no probative evidence and the landlord cannot give oral evidence because a different property management firm were in place at the time the tenancy began.
The landlord also claims for a garage remote which was not returned. I accept that the tenant had a garage remote because the landlord says that he observed her using this during the course of the tenancy and the landlord’s evidence is undisputed.The landlord has provided an invoice showing the replacement cost of the remote control to be $120.00 plus GST ($138.00). The amount ordered is proven.

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.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A poorly patched hole in the living room and a hole in the dining room b. Broken glass panel in the front door
In relation to these items the landlord referred to property inspection reports from the start, duration of and the end of the tenancy as well as photographs from the end of the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Compensation awarded in relation to these items is set out below.
The landlord also says a window in the shed was broken. While the ingoing property inspection report refers to the garage / car port as being in ‘good condition’. I do not consider this to be clear enough evidence in relation to the shed, particularly when the present landlord was not the property manager at the start of the tenancy, so did not complete the property inspection form and cannot give oral evidence on the condition of the shed windows at the start of the tenancy. Further, there is no outgoing photograph of the damage at the end of the tenancy. I dismiss this part of the claim.
An invoice was provided showing the cost incurred for repairs to the walls throughout the property. The landlord limited its claim for the damage to the holes in the living room and dining room to $50.00. The sum claimed is reasonable. I award this sum in full.
The landlord’s evidence in relation to the cost incurred for the reglazing of the front door is not clear. The landlord says that the invoice provided to support the cost of the reglazing of the front door is the invoice dated 30 October 2022 (for $429.29). This invoice states: ‘reglaze windows, repair lock and supply garage remote’.
The landlord said that this invoice relates to reglazing both the shed window and re-glazing the front door. However, as I noted at the hearing there is a second invoice which also refers to the repair of glass for the front door (dated 23 August 2022 for $563.85). The landlord says that that invoice only relates to the locks. However, I see that on this invoice an individual entry sets out ‘glass 4mm stippolite obscure’. Photographs of the front door show that it is frosted/obscured glass.
Given this unclear evidence I award $22.29 in relation to the glass broken in the front door. This is the cost of one unit of replacement glass based on the invoice dated 23 August 2022 that the landlord directed me to consider in relation to the re-glazing of the front door. The sum claimed for a unit of glass in that invoice is less than the sum claimed for glass in the other invoice so this does not prejudice the tenant.
I do not award any labour or travel for the reglazing of the front door because the labour/travel cost solely attributable to the re-glazing labour cost cannot be accurately determined. In addition to the lack of clarity around which invoice is relevant to the reglazing of the front door there is no way for me to know how much of the tradesperson’s labour/travel time is associated with the re-glazing of the front door.
This is because, if the invoice dated 30 October 2022 is the right invoice, the labour/travel is mixed with the reglazing work for the shed (which has been dismissed). If the invoice dated 23 August 2022 is the right invoice then the labour/travel is mixed with the cost for the lock replacement work (which has also been dismissed). In other words, there is no way for me to know how much of the tradesperson’s time was spent doing the job for which the award has been made. The Tribunal cannot make guesstimates.
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. Given the claim is for a repairs only I have not depreciated the cost claimed. The landlord is not better off by the awards made. Suppression and filing fee
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord requested name suppression. As the landlord has been substantially successful, I have awarded this (s95A, RTA).

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4447562 — net $1,987.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal: Skip hire and labour	$1,196.83	Rubbish removal: Skip hire and labour
Cleaning: Including carpet cleaning	$425.50	Cleaning: Including carpet cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$134.78	Lawns and Garden work
Key replacement: Replace garage remote	$138.00	Key replacement: Replace garage remote
Window repairs: Glass to front door	$22.29	Window repairs: Glass to front door
Repairs: Patch holes	$50.00	Repairs: Patch holes
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,987.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,987.84

Claims and awards for application 4447562 — net $1,987.84 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rubbish removal: Skip hire and labour

Amount: $1,196.83
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: Skip hire and labour

Cleaning: Including carpet cleaning

Amount: $425.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: Including carpet cleaning

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $134.78
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Key replacement: Replace garage remote

Amount: $138.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Key replacement: Replace garage remote

Window repairs: Glass to front door

Amount: $22.29
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs: Glass to front door

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Property damage Lawns And Garden Work Rubbish Removal

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 landlord’s claim for rent arrears is withdrawn.
The landlord’s claim for damage to glass in the shed and for replacement locks is dismissed.
Ngahoe Bloxham-Peretiaki must pay $1,987.84 [the landlord/s] immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Only the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend. She was telephoned prior to the hearing by the Tribunal but did not answer. Service
The application was filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy, so the usual service rules no longer apply.
The application should be served either personally on the tenant, delivered to someone over the age of 16 living at address where the tenant now lives, or by post to an address provided by the tenant within two months before the application was made. See section 91A(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The application was not served in accordance with these requirements.
Around the same time the application was being made the landlord says he telephoned the tenant’s mother, who is listed as the tenant’s agent on the tenancy agreement. She confirmed that the tenant was living with her and provided an address. This is the address the application was sent to. The application was also sent to the tenant by way of the email set out in the tenancy agreement and SMS alerts were sent.
The tenant would have known that a claim was likely because she gave the landlord a handwritten note saying she would be responsible for the cost of the disposal of items left by her that were not removed by a specified date. As set out below, the tenant did not dispose of the items.
The landlord may apply to the Tribunal for a direction that the application is to be served by some other means likely to bring it to the tenant’s notice. Alternatively, the landlord may apply to the Tribunal for a direction that service be dispensed with in accordance with s 91B Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In these circumstances I direct that the application be treated as served on the tenant as at the address provided by her mother. This is likely to have brought the application to the tenant’s attention. The procedure that has been followed to obtain the tenant’s new address is similar to that set out at s91A(2)(c) RTA (delivering it to the place where the tenant now lives and giving it to any person appearing to be aged 16 years or older who appears to be residing at that place and who confirms that the tenant resides there).

How much is owed for rent?

This tenancy was terminated and rent arrears ordered in an earlier order. The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is withdrawn.

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.

Were all personal belongings and rubbish removed?

The tenant did not remove all of her items and rubbish. The landlord arranged for items to be removed from the premises and for them to be disposed of. There was a written agreement with the tenant that the landlord could do this after a specified date if they had not been removed and that she would bear the cost.
The disposal involved the hire of two skips ($452.32 plus $308.40 plus GST) and labour of 8 hours to throw the items away (at $35 per hour plus GST). This totals $1,196.83 including GST.
I am satisfied that the photographs provided support the effort required. This claim is awarded in full.

Were the premises left reasonably clean and tidy?

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy inside both inside and out.
The landlord sought $280.00 (plus GST) for the cleaning of the property generally, $180.00 (plus GST) for the steam cleaning of ceilings and walls and $90.00 (plus GST) for carpet cleaning.
Having viewed the photographs of the property I am satisfied that the claim to undertake the general clean and to clean the carpets is reasonable and I award this in full ($425.50 including GST).
I make no award in relation to the steam cleaning of the walls and ceilings. There was insufficient evidence to support this claim. This work would have more likely than not have taken the premises to a state better than the tenant was required to return it in. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls and ceilings. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that the can re- tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
The landlord also sought $134.78 in relation to lawn work and weed strimming in the garden. The garden was left over-grown and was not reasonably tidy. The sum claimed is reasonable. The amount ordered is proven.

Were all keys returned?

The landlord says that the tenant did not return the keys when he asked her to do this during a discussion about her removing her items from the premises.
By this stage the landlord had already changed the locks. The landlord says that, despite the tenancy only terminating the day before the locks were changed, the tenant had already left the property some time ago. The landlord says he knew this because the cards he had left for her had not been moved.
I dismiss the claim in relation to the changing of the locks. This is because it is not clear what keys were given to the tenant at the start of the tenancy. There is no probative evidence and the landlord cannot give oral evidence because a different property management firm were in place at the time the tenancy began.
The landlord also claims for a garage remote which was not returned. I accept that the tenant had a garage remote because the landlord says that he observed her using this during the course of the tenancy and the landlord’s evidence is undisputed.The landlord has provided an invoice showing the replacement cost of the remote control to be $120.00 plus GST ($138.00). The amount ordered is proven.

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.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A poorly patched hole in the living room and a hole in the dining room b. Broken glass panel in the front door
In relation to these items the landlord referred to property inspection reports from the start, duration of and the end of the tenancy as well as photographs from the end of the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Compensation awarded in relation to these items is set out below.
The landlord also says a window in the shed was broken. While the ingoing property inspection report refers to the garage / car port as being in ‘good condition’. I do not consider this to be clear enough evidence in relation to the shed, particularly when the present landlord was not the property manager at the start of the tenancy, so did not complete the property inspection form and cannot give oral evidence on the condition of the shed windows at the start of the tenancy. Further, there is no outgoing photograph of the damage at the end of the tenancy. I dismiss this part of the claim.
An invoice was provided showing the cost incurred for repairs to the walls throughout the property. The landlord limited its claim for the damage to the holes in the living room and dining room to $50.00. The sum claimed is reasonable. I award this sum in full.
The landlord’s evidence in relation to the cost incurred for the reglazing of the front door is not clear. The landlord says that the invoice provided to support the cost of the reglazing of the front door is the invoice dated 30 October 2022 (for $429.29). This invoice states: ‘reglaze windows, repair lock and supply garage remote’.
The landlord said that this invoice relates to reglazing both the shed window and re-glazing the front door. However, as I noted at the hearing there is a second invoice which also refers to the repair of glass for the front door (dated 23 August 2022 for $563.85). The landlord says that that invoice only relates to the locks. However, I see that on this invoice an individual entry sets out ‘glass 4mm stippolite obscure’. Photographs of the front door show that it is frosted/obscured glass.
Given this unclear evidence I award $22.29 in relation to the glass broken in the front door. This is the cost of one unit of replacement glass based on the invoice dated 23 August 2022 that the landlord directed me to consider in relation to the re-glazing of the front door. The sum claimed for a unit of glass in that invoice is less than the sum claimed for glass in the other invoice so this does not prejudice the tenant.
I do not award any labour or travel for the reglazing of the front door because the labour/travel cost solely attributable to the re-glazing labour cost cannot be accurately determined. In addition to the lack of clarity around which invoice is relevant to the reglazing of the front door there is no way for me to know how much of the tradesperson’s labour/travel time is associated with the re-glazing of the front door.
This is because, if the invoice dated 30 October 2022 is the right invoice, the labour/travel is mixed with the reglazing work for the shed (which has been dismissed). If the invoice dated 23 August 2022 is the right invoice then the labour/travel is mixed with the cost for the lock replacement work (which has also been dismissed). In other words, there is no way for me to know how much of the tradesperson’s time was spent doing the job for which the award has been made. The Tribunal cannot make guesstimates.
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. Given the claim is for a repairs only I have not depreciated the cost claimed. The landlord is not better off by the awards made. Suppression and filing fee
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord requested name suppression. As the landlord has been substantially successful, I have awarded this (s95A, RTA).

Tenancy Tribunal case 4447562 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4447562 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Were all personal belongings and rubbish removed?

Were the premises left reasonably clean and tidy?

Were all keys returned?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Were all personal belongings and rubbish removed?

Were the premises left reasonably clean and tidy?

Were all keys returned?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions