What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4452937 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ and the Landlord’s names and

How much money was awarded in case 4452937?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Fixed Term Break Fee: $493.74 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $520.00 awarded to landlord; Broken Window: $188.81 awarded to landlord; Painting Walls: $552.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4452937?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4452937?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8757218-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4452937 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ and the Landlord’s names and

How much money was awarded in case 4452937?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Fixed Term Break Fee: $493.74 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $520.00 awarded to landlord; Broken Window: $188.81 awarded to landlord; Painting Walls: $552.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4452937?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4452937?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8757218-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4452937 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4452937 — Property damage | 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 4452937 — net $1,774.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$520.00	Rent arrears
Fixed term break fee	$493.74	Fixed term break fee
Repairs: Painting walls	$552.00	Repairs: Painting walls
Repairs: Broken Window	$188.81	Repairs: Broken Window
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,774.99
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,774.99

Claims and awards for application 4452937 — net $1,774.99 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $520.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Fixed term break fee

Amount: $493.74
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Fixed term break fee

Repairs: Painting walls

Amount: $552.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Painting walls

Repairs: Broken Window

Amount: $188.81
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Broken Window

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ and the Landlord’s names and identifying details under section 95A(1A), Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
[The tenant/s]’s claim is dismissed.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,774.99 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,774.99 [The tenant/s]: $305.01

Reasons

The female tenant attended the hearing, but the male tenant did not attend. The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 13 May 2022 and was for a fixed term due to end on 12 May 2023. Rent was $520.00 a week. The female tenant rang the landlord on Friday 28 October 2022 and advised that she had vacated the tenancy that day as she was the victim of domestic abuse. The male tenant also moved out on 28 October.
The landlord understood it had an obligation under the family violence provisions in section 56B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) to release the female tenant from the tenancy. The landlord agreed to release the female tenant from the tenancy and her obligation to pay rent from 6 November. The landlord also agreed that the fixed term tenancy could end early on payment of a break fee and started looking for new tenants straight away. A new tenancy started on 25 November 2022.
Both parties have made an application.
The female tenant made an application for refund of rent ($520.00), refund of her half share of the bond (50% of $2,040.00 held at the Bond Centre) and reimbursement of the filing fee. At the hearing the female tenant withdrew her claim for rent as the landlord had refunded the rent she had claimed.
The landlord applied for rent arrears ($520.00), a fixed term break fee ($493.74), repair to a broken window ($188.81) and walls ($552.00), a claim on part of the bond ($1,754.55), and reimbursement of the filing fee. following the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s claim names both tenants, however the landlord said they were seeking an award against the male tenant only for the rent.
In order to determine the applications I need to first determine whether the female tenant was entitled to be released from the tenancy for reasons of family violence as allowed under s 56B of the RTA.

Was the female tenant able to be released from the tenancy?

A fixed term tenancy is a legally binding contract for a set period of time. The agreement by a landlord and a tenant to a fixed term establishes their intention that the tenancy will not end sooner and certainty that is the case. However there are some exceptions to this, which include where all parties to the tenancy agree it will end sooner; where the Tribunal makes an order; or where s 56B applies.
In this instance there is no evidence that the male tenant has agreed to the female tenant being released from the tenancy. The landlord has relied on and understood that the female tenant could be released from the tenancy under s 56B, RTA which enables a tenant to withdraw from a tenancy if they are a victim of family violence.
Section 56B came into effect on 11 August 2021. It gives a tenant who has been subject to family violence, a right to withdraw from the tenancy on giving at least two days’ notice to a landlord if: a) the notice is accompanied by qualifying evidence that the tenant has been a victim of family violence while a tenant of the premises; and b) the notice is in the approved form and includes the prescribed information.
The form of the notice and the type of evidence the tenant is required to include under s 56B are set out in regulations which came into force on 29 December 2022 1 , well after s 56B came into effect. However, the Tribunal has held that s 56B’s purpose is clear and that the provision can be given effect in situations such as in this case, where a tenant has notified a landlord that they want to withdraw from the tenancy after section 56B came into force but before the regulations setting out the procedural requirements came into force. 2 Therefore I am satisfied that in this case I can consider whether the tenant had the right to withdraw under s 56B regardless that the regulations outlining the procedural requirements had not come into effect. 1 The Residential Tenancies (Termination for Physical Assault by Tenant and Withdrawal Following Family Violence) Regulations 2022 2 See None v None and other parties [2022] NZTT 4397820 which sets out a detailed discussion of this issue in paragraphs 19-28.
In considering whether the female tenant is entitled to withdraw I first need to consider whether she had given notice of a type intended by s 56B.
The rights and obligations of landlords and tenants are often invoked by service of a notice. ‘Notice’ is not defined in the RTA, but is referred to in a number of provisions all of which intend that a written notice be given. Section 56C sets out specific rules for when notices given by a tenant under s 56B to withdraw and accompanying qualifying evidence are deemed to have been served when the notices are posted or delivered. I cannot see therefore that it is intended that ‘notice’ under s 56B was intended by Parliament to be anything other than a notice in writing.
Here the tenant has not given written notice but has telephoned the landlord and spoken to someone other than her property manager. I find this does not satisfy the criteria set out in s 56B regardless that the regulations were not in place at the time.
Likewise the female tenant has not provided any “qualifying evidence”. Even without any regulations prescribing what “qualifying evidence” is, the wording of s 56B makes it clear that the tenant must provide evidence that is convincing that they are a victim of family violence. “Qualifying evidence” is defined in s 56B(8) as meaning: a) a declaration in the approved form made by a person who is prescribed, or is of a class prescribed, for the purposes of this subsection; or b) evidence, in the approved form, of a prescribed type.
Here the female tenant has made verbal statements to the landlord that she was such a victim and provided a video of the male tenant being upset with and abusive to her father. However I cannot see that this evidence can be considered to meet the criteria of qualifying evidence set out in section 56B. Even without the regulations being made, s 56B(8) clarifies that a declaration, being a statement in writing, is one form of qualifying evidence. Regardless of whether the female tenant met the threshold needed for accompanying qualifying evidence the first hurdle of providing written notice has not been met. Therefore I find the female tenant is not able to withdraw from the tenancy under s 56B.
I acknowledge that the landlord in this case intended to take actions it saw as being correct by, in the landlord’s words, releasing the female tenant from the tenancy as it did. However s 56B on its own, without the regulations being passed, contains sufficient certainty of what is required by a tenant to be able to withdraw and has not been met in this instance.
My decision that the female tenant cannot withdraw under s 56B in this case is not a decision about whether or not the tenant was a victim of family violence. The role of the Tribunal is not to determine that question, but to determine whether the tenant has taken the correct actions under s56B and has the right to withdraw following family violence.
As I am not satisfied that the female tenant met the conditions required under s 56B to be able to withdraw from the tenancy, her responsibilities as a tenant continued after she vacated. As mentioned above no evidence has been presented that the male tenant agreed to her release from the tenancy or to her responsibilities ending prior to the tenancy ending. All parties to the tenancy would have needed to agree for the female tenant to have been released early than the end of the tenancy.
Accordingly the landlord’s claim is determined on the basis that both tenants are jointly and severally liable for any claim the landlord has proven. The landlord’s claim:

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord claims $520.00 for rent arrears, which is established by the rent records provided. The amount claimed is the sum the landlord agreed to pay to the female tenant when both the landlord and the female tenant believed the female tenant had the right to withdraw from the tenancy. However as the female tenant did not have the right to withdraw, and the parties without the agreement of the male tenant could not agree to the female tenant withdrawing, the rent was in arrears by this sum at the end of the tenancy.
Both the landlord and the female tenant were mistaken that the female tenant was able to withdraw and that she had no obligation to continue to pay rent. This was a mistake in their understanding of the law which has resulted in the landlord not receiving rent that was due.
The provisions of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 set out that in situations where both parties are influenced by the same mistake, whether it be fact or law, compensation may be awarded where it is just 3 . I find this is a situation where the landlord is justly entitled to the rent owed. The tenants are jointly and severally liable for rent that is owed to the landlord.

Are the tenants 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. 3 See sections 24 and 28, Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. 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 following damage was intentionally caused during the tenancy: A kitchen window was broken and holes had been caused in walls at the tenancy. The holes were plastered to a workmanlike standard prior to the tenancy ending. The affected walls were painted over the areas repaired, rather than each wall being painted from corner to corner. The photographs provided by the landlord show the painted patches are not an exact colour match to the walls and are obvious.
The District Court has found that touching up cupboards with paint that did not match the primary colour of the cupboards is intentional damage 4 . Likewise I find that painting only the repaired areas of the walls with paint that is not an exact colour match is intentional damage.
I find the costs claimed are reasonable for the work involved. The work has not yet been carried out, however I accept that the landlord was unable to paint the six walls affected before the tenancy ended, and given the busy building environment, and the location of the walls in the premises has not yet had the opportunity to do this work.

Are the tenants liable to pay the break fee?

4 HomeLet Property Management Ltd v Santara Grindley-Alovili [2019] NZDC 4700.

A landlord who agrees to an early termination of a fixed term tenancy is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenants any reasonable expenses incurred by the landlord in respect of the early termination. (s 44A(1), RTA).
The landlord agreed to the fixed term tenancy ending early and provided an itemised account of expenses. Having considered the list of expenses claimed I am satisfied that the sum claimed is reasonable. Filing Fee
As the landlord has been wholly succeeded with its claim the filing fee must be awarded. Name suppression
Section 95A(1A) requires that the names and identifying particulars of parties for proceedings relating to s 56B are not to be published. Accordingly all parties names and identifying particulars are suppressed.

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 4452937 — net $1,774.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$520.00	Rent arrears
Fixed term break fee	$493.74	Fixed term break fee
Repairs: Painting walls	$552.00	Repairs: Painting walls
Repairs: Broken Window	$188.81	Repairs: Broken Window
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,774.99
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,774.99

Claims and awards for application 4452937 — net $1,774.99 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $520.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Fixed term break fee

Amount: $493.74
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Fixed term break fee

Repairs: Painting walls

Amount: $552.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Painting walls

Repairs: Broken Window

Amount: $188.81
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Broken Window

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ and the Landlord’s names and identifying details under section 95A(1A), Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
[The tenant/s]’s claim is dismissed.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,774.99 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,774.99 [The tenant/s]: $305.01

Reasons

The female tenant attended the hearing, but the male tenant did not attend. The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 13 May 2022 and was for a fixed term due to end on 12 May 2023. Rent was $520.00 a week. The female tenant rang the landlord on Friday 28 October 2022 and advised that she had vacated the tenancy that day as she was the victim of domestic abuse. The male tenant also moved out on 28 October.
The landlord understood it had an obligation under the family violence provisions in section 56B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) to release the female tenant from the tenancy. The landlord agreed to release the female tenant from the tenancy and her obligation to pay rent from 6 November. The landlord also agreed that the fixed term tenancy could end early on payment of a break fee and started looking for new tenants straight away. A new tenancy started on 25 November 2022.
Both parties have made an application.
The female tenant made an application for refund of rent ($520.00), refund of her half share of the bond (50% of $2,040.00 held at the Bond Centre) and reimbursement of the filing fee. At the hearing the female tenant withdrew her claim for rent as the landlord had refunded the rent she had claimed.
The landlord applied for rent arrears ($520.00), a fixed term break fee ($493.74), repair to a broken window ($188.81) and walls ($552.00), a claim on part of the bond ($1,754.55), and reimbursement of the filing fee. following the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s claim names both tenants, however the landlord said they were seeking an award against the male tenant only for the rent.
In order to determine the applications I need to first determine whether the female tenant was entitled to be released from the tenancy for reasons of family violence as allowed under s 56B of the RTA.

Was the female tenant able to be released from the tenancy?

A fixed term tenancy is a legally binding contract for a set period of time. The agreement by a landlord and a tenant to a fixed term establishes their intention that the tenancy will not end sooner and certainty that is the case. However there are some exceptions to this, which include where all parties to the tenancy agree it will end sooner; where the Tribunal makes an order; or where s 56B applies.
In this instance there is no evidence that the male tenant has agreed to the female tenant being released from the tenancy. The landlord has relied on and understood that the female tenant could be released from the tenancy under s 56B, RTA which enables a tenant to withdraw from a tenancy if they are a victim of family violence.
Section 56B came into effect on 11 August 2021. It gives a tenant who has been subject to family violence, a right to withdraw from the tenancy on giving at least two days’ notice to a landlord if: a) the notice is accompanied by qualifying evidence that the tenant has been a victim of family violence while a tenant of the premises; and b) the notice is in the approved form and includes the prescribed information.
The form of the notice and the type of evidence the tenant is required to include under s 56B are set out in regulations which came into force on 29 December 2022 1 , well after s 56B came into effect. However, the Tribunal has held that s 56B’s purpose is clear and that the provision can be given effect in situations such as in this case, where a tenant has notified a landlord that they want to withdraw from the tenancy after section 56B came into force but before the regulations setting out the procedural requirements came into force. 2 Therefore I am satisfied that in this case I can consider whether the tenant had the right to withdraw under s 56B regardless that the regulations outlining the procedural requirements had not come into effect. 1 The Residential Tenancies (Termination for Physical Assault by Tenant and Withdrawal Following Family Violence) Regulations 2022 2 See None v None and other parties [2022] NZTT 4397820 which sets out a detailed discussion of this issue in paragraphs 19-28.
In considering whether the female tenant is entitled to withdraw I first need to consider whether she had given notice of a type intended by s 56B.
The rights and obligations of landlords and tenants are often invoked by service of a notice. ‘Notice’ is not defined in the RTA, but is referred to in a number of provisions all of which intend that a written notice be given. Section 56C sets out specific rules for when notices given by a tenant under s 56B to withdraw and accompanying qualifying evidence are deemed to have been served when the notices are posted or delivered. I cannot see therefore that it is intended that ‘notice’ under s 56B was intended by Parliament to be anything other than a notice in writing.
Here the tenant has not given written notice but has telephoned the landlord and spoken to someone other than her property manager. I find this does not satisfy the criteria set out in s 56B regardless that the regulations were not in place at the time.
Likewise the female tenant has not provided any “qualifying evidence”. Even without any regulations prescribing what “qualifying evidence” is, the wording of s 56B makes it clear that the tenant must provide evidence that is convincing that they are a victim of family violence. “Qualifying evidence” is defined in s 56B(8) as meaning: a) a declaration in the approved form made by a person who is prescribed, or is of a class prescribed, for the purposes of this subsection; or b) evidence, in the approved form, of a prescribed type.
Here the female tenant has made verbal statements to the landlord that she was such a victim and provided a video of the male tenant being upset with and abusive to her father. However I cannot see that this evidence can be considered to meet the criteria of qualifying evidence set out in section 56B. Even without the regulations being made, s 56B(8) clarifies that a declaration, being a statement in writing, is one form of qualifying evidence. Regardless of whether the female tenant met the threshold needed for accompanying qualifying evidence the first hurdle of providing written notice has not been met. Therefore I find the female tenant is not able to withdraw from the tenancy under s 56B.
I acknowledge that the landlord in this case intended to take actions it saw as being correct by, in the landlord’s words, releasing the female tenant from the tenancy as it did. However s 56B on its own, without the regulations being passed, contains sufficient certainty of what is required by a tenant to be able to withdraw and has not been met in this instance.
My decision that the female tenant cannot withdraw under s 56B in this case is not a decision about whether or not the tenant was a victim of family violence. The role of the Tribunal is not to determine that question, but to determine whether the tenant has taken the correct actions under s56B and has the right to withdraw following family violence.
As I am not satisfied that the female tenant met the conditions required under s 56B to be able to withdraw from the tenancy, her responsibilities as a tenant continued after she vacated. As mentioned above no evidence has been presented that the male tenant agreed to her release from the tenancy or to her responsibilities ending prior to the tenancy ending. All parties to the tenancy would have needed to agree for the female tenant to have been released early than the end of the tenancy.
Accordingly the landlord’s claim is determined on the basis that both tenants are jointly and severally liable for any claim the landlord has proven. The landlord’s claim:

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord claims $520.00 for rent arrears, which is established by the rent records provided. The amount claimed is the sum the landlord agreed to pay to the female tenant when both the landlord and the female tenant believed the female tenant had the right to withdraw from the tenancy. However as the female tenant did not have the right to withdraw, and the parties without the agreement of the male tenant could not agree to the female tenant withdrawing, the rent was in arrears by this sum at the end of the tenancy.
Both the landlord and the female tenant were mistaken that the female tenant was able to withdraw and that she had no obligation to continue to pay rent. This was a mistake in their understanding of the law which has resulted in the landlord not receiving rent that was due.
The provisions of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 set out that in situations where both parties are influenced by the same mistake, whether it be fact or law, compensation may be awarded where it is just 3 . I find this is a situation where the landlord is justly entitled to the rent owed. The tenants are jointly and severally liable for rent that is owed to the landlord.

Are the tenants 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. 3 See sections 24 and 28, Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. 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 following damage was intentionally caused during the tenancy: A kitchen window was broken and holes had been caused in walls at the tenancy. The holes were plastered to a workmanlike standard prior to the tenancy ending. The affected walls were painted over the areas repaired, rather than each wall being painted from corner to corner. The photographs provided by the landlord show the painted patches are not an exact colour match to the walls and are obvious.
The District Court has found that touching up cupboards with paint that did not match the primary colour of the cupboards is intentional damage 4 . Likewise I find that painting only the repaired areas of the walls with paint that is not an exact colour match is intentional damage.
I find the costs claimed are reasonable for the work involved. The work has not yet been carried out, however I accept that the landlord was unable to paint the six walls affected before the tenancy ended, and given the busy building environment, and the location of the walls in the premises has not yet had the opportunity to do this work.

Are the tenants liable to pay the break fee?

4 HomeLet Property Management Ltd v Santara Grindley-Alovili [2019] NZDC 4700.

A landlord who agrees to an early termination of a fixed term tenancy is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenants any reasonable expenses incurred by the landlord in respect of the early termination. (s 44A(1), RTA).
The landlord agreed to the fixed term tenancy ending early and provided an itemised account of expenses. Having considered the list of expenses claimed I am satisfied that the sum claimed is reasonable. Filing Fee
As the landlord has been wholly succeeded with its claim the filing fee must be awarded. Name suppression
Section 95A(1A) requires that the names and identifying particulars of parties for proceedings relating to s 56B are not to be published. Accordingly all parties names and identifying particulars are suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4452937 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4452937 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the female tenant able to be released from the tenancy?

How much is owed for rent?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Are the tenants liable to pay the break fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the female tenant able to be released from the tenancy?

How much is owed for rent?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Are the tenants liable to pay the break fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions