What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4471420 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $4,633.08 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4471420?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $497.37 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,285.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4471420?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4471420?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10400876-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4471420 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $4,633.08 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4471420?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $497.37 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,285.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4471420?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4471420?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10400876-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4471420 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4471420 — net $4,633.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 28 January 2024	$5,285.71		Rent arrears to 28 January 2024
Damage to wall	$497.37		Damage to wall
Exemplary damages		$250.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$5,783.08	$250.00
Net award	$4,633.08
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,633.08

The tenant’s claim was filed on 22 December 2022. The landlord filed a counterclaim on 06 January 2023. On 10 March 2023, the landlord challenged the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. On 04 October 2023, the Tribunal determined that it did have jurisdiction to deal with the claims. There have also been several adjournments for medical reasons, case management conferences, and a number of evidence directions have been made.

[The tenant/s] appeared and was supported by her parents. [The landlord/s] appeared with her representative [The landlord's representative]. Although [The landlord's representative] was entitled to do so he did not directly address the Tribunal but remained on hand to assist the landlord. During the hearing the tenant objected to this stating that [The landlord's representative] was assisting landlord. [The tenant/s] claimed that she had misunderstood the grounds on which [The landlord/s] had been granted representation and would knowing that she to was entitled would have arranged her own representation. I referred [The tenant/s] to previous directions, making it clear to [The tenant/s] that she had been afforded the same opportunity to be represented. The tenant instead used medical evidence as grounds to delay the hearing.

The tenancy commenced on 22 June 2022. The property has three bedrooms, two ensuite bathrooms, main bathroom, kitchen, dining room, lounge, and garage, which houses the laundry. During the tenancy, the landlord had exclusive use of a bedroom and ensuite separated from the other two bedrooms and the rest of the house by a hallway and door with a simple keyless lock. When not using the room themselves that landlord offered their room, which could be accessed separately to the rest of the house, for Air BnB. The landlord an Air BnB quates did not use the main kitchen, instead using a gas BBQ outside. Both the tenant / landlord and Air BnB quests shared the laundry in the garage. The rent was $720.00 per week, $600.00 paid into the landlord’s account and a condition that the tenant work one day per week at a nearby business owned by the landlord. The value placed on the work was $120.00 per day. The agreement allowed for the tenant to have animals at the property.

On or about 07 October 2022, there was a leak in the ensuite bathroom of the room used by the landlord. This resulted in flood that affected the landlord’s room, the hallway leading the room, and the two bedrooms occupied by the tenant and her two children. Between 07 October 2022, and on or about 17 October 2022 contractors had access to the entire property to lift, dry, and then relay the carpet. On 07 October 2022, the landlord reduced the rent $550.00 per week to recognise the inconvenience, and no longer required the tenant to provide a day’s labour. Remedial work was also completed to the landlords’ ensuite, and sections of skirting boards in the hallway were replaced.

On 19 October 2022, the landlord served the tenant a 63-day notice to terminate the tenancy on the basis that the landlord intended occupying the entire property. The tenant acknowledged the notice but refused to vacate.

On or about 28 October 2022, the tenant ceased living at the property stating that the noise and smell had created an unhealthy living environment for her family. From then until the end of the tenancy the tenancy resided elsewhere but continued to use the property, to keep house her pets, store clothing, furniture, and other possessions. The tenant did not seek to bring the tenancy to an end, stating that while they wished to return, they felt unable because of the condition of the property and break down in the relationship with the landlord. Further, due to the shortage of rental property in the area they did not want to relinquish the property and face homelessness.

On 28 January 2023, the landlord conducted a final inspection marking the end of the tenancy whereby the tenant removed their belongings. However, the keys were not returned until on or about 31 January 2023.

The tenant’s claims are that: i. The landlord has failed to comply with the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 relating to moisture, dampness and ventilation, section 45(1)(c ) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 ( The “ Act”). The tenant is seeking compensation and exemplary damages. ii. The landlord has failed to maintain the deck, the windows and doors, and the roof in a reasonable state of repair, section 45(1)(b) of the Act. The tenant is seeking compensation and exemplary damages. iii. The landlord changed the locks without the tenant’s consent, section 46(2) and (3) of the Act. The tenant is seeking exemplary damages. iv. The landlord entered the property unlawfully, section 48(1) of the Act. The tenant is seeking exemplary damages. v. The landlord failed to lodge the bond within the required period, section 19(1) of the Act. The tenant is seeking compensation. vi. A 63-day notice to terminate the tenancy issued on 19 October 2022 was retaliatory, section 54(1) of the Act. The tenant is seeking compensation and exemplary damages.

The landlord’s claims are that: i. The tenant owes rent arrears. ii. The tenant has caused damage to a door, the carpet, the curtains, and the walls which is more than fair wear and tear. Section 49B of the Act. The landlord is seeking compensation.

The onus of proving these claims rests with the party making it. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. In this case, both the landlord and tenant must establish more likely than not that the other has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Act. Has the landlord has failed to comply with the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 relating to moisture, dampness and ventilation

For this tenancy the Healthy Homes Standards come into effect on 01 July 2025. For this tenancy the provisions in the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (“HIR”) regarding moisture, dampness, and ventilation applied. These provide that the property must be meet minimum standards for weathertightness and dampness and moisture. A failure to comply with these provisions constitutes a breach of section 45(1)(c ) of the Act. The party affected by the breach may be awarded compensation for any loss arising. Breaching any of these obligations is also an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 (see s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the Act).

The tenant states that when it rained, water would leak through the windows sit on the sills, and then run down the walls onto the carpet. The tenant states that they raised verbally with the landlord on at least four occasions that in their opinion the property was not watertight which caused excessive moisture and dampness. The tenant has produced photographs taken on or around 12 October 2022, which they state show damage caused by water ingress together with black mould.

In support of their claim, the tenant has produced an unsigned letter from a building contractor who they engaged to conduct an inspection of the property on 25 October 2022. The contractor states that they were advised by the tenant that rain entered through the windows. The contractor states they conducted a test and determined that the rubber seals on some of the windows were “very old and shrunken”. The contractor states that they used a garden hose to direct water at the windows and discovered that under normal weather conditions, the windows would likely allow rain to penetrate. The contractor concludes that the during the winter months the bedrooms would be unsuitable for habitation.

The tenant called [The witness] who stated that he had meet the tenant around the time she moved in, had then taken a break renewing their relationship shortly are “issues arose”. When asked about dates [The witness] became defensive and hostile, stating that he had better things to do. At this point, I confirmed with the tenant whether they still wished [The witness]’s evidence to be considered, to which they affirmed they did. In summary his evidence was that he was now married to the tenant, became involved after the tenant moved out around October 2022, has been a plaster / decorator for 30 years, and in his opinion the property was derelict and should never have been offered for rental.

[The landlord/s] stated that the matter had been raised during an inspection. That upon Investigation she could not find any fault and suggested that the tenant close the windows properly. [The landlord/s] states that the matter was not raised again and that she was unaware of the complaints about possible ongoing water ingress until near the end of the tenancy. [The landlord/s] has challenged the evidence of the contractor and questions their qualifications.

Whether the property was defective as claimed by the tenant involves an objective assessment of the evidence. While some of the photographs produced show damage in the form of rotting to one windowsill corner, this is not unusual in a property of this age. On its own, this does not necessarily mean that that property was prone to excess moisture and dampness. There are no photographs of water coming through windows or sitting on sills or running down walls. I am not satisfied that what is shown in the photographs produced is black mould. The contractor does not refer to their qualifications. There are no photographs accompanying the contractors letter showing the method or tests used or the results. Apart from the one email sent by the landlord touching on the matter, there is no other documentary evidence of it being raised. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the matter was raised just the once and not as an ongoing issue. [The witness]’s opinion evidence was general and lacked sufficient detail. Having considered the evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord has breached their obligations this claim is dismissed. Has the landlord has failed to maintain the deck, the windows and doors, and the roof in a reasonable state of repair.

Section 45(1)(b) of the Act states that the landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the property and the period during which the property is likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.

The landlord’s obligation under section 45(1)(b) of the Act is to investigate and repair any defect brought to their attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what that timeframe is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right whatever the problem might be.

In each claim the respective tenants must establish the fault or damage, when it was first raised, what was the landlord’s response, was the matter satisfactory resolved within a reasonable time frame, if not why, if to resolved how many times was the matter raised, and what loss has the tenant suffered as a result. As stated, the onus is on the tenant to prove the claim.

There is no evidence regarding the doors. The contractor states that without a ladder they were unable to access the roof. I have addressed the windows above. The claim is dismissed. The landlord changed the locks without the tenant’s consent.

Under section 46(2) of the Act, neither party shall alter or remove any existing lock without the consent of the other. Failure to comply with this requirement without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.

During the flood an associate of the tenant kicked the door down between the tenant’s property and the area used by the landlord. In the circumstances, the landlord took no issue with this occurring. To complete the remedial work the door between the two areas was temporarily removed to facilitate air flow. The tenant states that the door was rehung, and the lock repaired before their leaving on or about 28 October 2022. The tenant has produced a photograph taken on 15 October 2023, together with an audio file, showing the door in place with the locking mechanism missing. The tenant states that to remove the mechanism someone, the landlord or an agent, would have had to enter their area. The tenant states that this change / removal was without consent and a breach of the Act.

[The landlord/s] states that the door was rehung but cannot recall whether the locking mechanism was replaced before the contractors advised that they had completed the work on 17 October 2023.

The other photographs produced by the tenant purported to have been taken at the same time, show that the drying process is continuing, with one photograph showing the doors between the two areas open. The onus is on the tenant to establish that the landlord repaired the door and lock, and then set about to remove the lock. This does not any sense. The photographs also show that on 15 October 2022, the tenant entered the landlord’s area and took photographs of the damage to the shower where the leak originated. I am not satisfied to the required standard that the landlord has removed they lock after it was repaired. The claim is dismissed. Did the landlord enter the property unlawfully.

Section 48(1) and (2) of the Act provides that a landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant’s consent, or in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections repairs, and maintenance. Failure to comply with this requirement without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.

Over the period 07 October 2022, to on or about 17 October 2022, contractors drying the carpet regularly attended the property. There is no evidence that this was contrary to section 48 of the Act. The tenant claims that between then and the 28 October 2022, and thereafter that the landlord continued to enter their area without consent or notice. The tenant states that they arrived at the property to find that the internal door between the two areas had been opened, that their belongings had been interfered with, and that on one occasion, discovered that the landlord’s dog had defecated in their area.

The landlord denies the allegations and states the tenant let their own animals defecate inside. The landlord states that on or about 09 December 2022, they arranged, with notice, for a builder to work on the skirting boards.

The tenant’s allegations lack specificity, in particular dates. There is insufficient evidence. I am not satisfied that the landlord has unlawfully entered the property. The claim is dismissed. The landlord failed to lodge the bond within the required period.

Under section 19 of the Act the landlord must lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within 23 days of receiving it. Failing to do so is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award, where it is just to do so, exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2), section 109(3), and Schedule 1A of the Act.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest (see s 109(3) the Act).

There is no dispute that the bond, which was paid on 01 June 2022, was not lodged within the required period.

I am satisfied that there has been a breach of the Act concerning the bond. The issue is exemplary damages.

The landlord states they suffer from a head injury which has an impact on their cognitive functioning. I note that the tenant suffers similar challenges. The landlord states that they misunderstood the nature of the relationship between the parties. The landlord states that when they realised that they were in breach they attempted to lodge the bond but were advised that because proceedings had been lodged, there was no point doing so. the bond with the Bond Centre. The tenant challenges the landlord claims that they were uncertain as to the nature of the relationship, as the tenant had handwritten the agreement herself, which the parties then both signed.

The bond is the tenant’s money and should be treated as such. How to deal with bonds appropriately is clearly set out by Tenancy Services, and in the provisions of the Act. Landlords must be aware of their legal obligations. It is in the public interest that they do so. Considering the factors in section 109(3), I believe award of $250.00 is appropriate. Was the 63-day notice to terminate the tenancy issued on 19 October 2022 retaliatory.

On 19 October 2022, the tenant was issued with a 63-day notice to terminate the tenancy on 21 December 2022. The notice was issued on the basis that the landlord intended to use the property themselves. The tenant acknowledged the notice and on 25 October 2022, advised the landlord that they did not intend vacating the property as they viewed the notice as retaliatory due to the flood.

The jurisdiction to declare a notice to terminate retaliatory under section 54(1) of the Act requires firstly that the application be filed within 28 working days of the notice being served. See Realty House Whakatane v Eschbank [2020] NZDC 1608.

The tenant’s application was filed on 22 December 2022, more than 28 working days after the service of the notice on 19 October 2022. The application to declare the notice retaliatory has been made out of time and is dismissed. The landlord’s claims.

The landlord claims that the tenant owes rent arrears. The tenant states they do not owe rent arears and in fact should receive a refund of all the rent they have paid.

Between 22 June 2022 to 07 October 2022, rent was $600.00, plus the one day’s work at the landlord’s business valued at $120.00. The rent summary records the only money payments made and does not include the services rendered in lieu of rent. I put the services in lieu of rent to one side on the basis there is no issue that they have not been properly accounted for.

On 08 October 2022, the rent decreased to $550.00 to take acknowledge the reduction in amenity caused by the flood. Despite the property being deemed suitable for occupation by the insurance assessor and contractor on or about 17 October 2022, the rent remained at that rate until the end of the tenancy, which the landlord states was on 28 January 2023. This end date was not contested by the tenant, who agrees that that was the date of the final inspection. They did not however return the keys until 31 January 2023.

The tenant states that from 07 October 2022, due to the carpet lifting and drying process that the bedrooms were unusable, and the family slept on the lounge. The tenant denied that the property was habitable after the 17 October 2022 stating that that it remained damp and smelly. The tenant states that or about 28 October 2022, they therefore moved from the property.

As stated, the tenant did not accept the termination notice nor did they seek to bring the relationship to an end by giving notice themselves or bring any proceedings before the Tribunal. The tenant states that even though they were not living at the address they were reluctant to “give it up” for fear that they would become homeless.

After 28 October 2022, the tenant stayed at various locations including a local campground where they paid rent. The tenant states that they had been advised that as they had moved, they were not liable to pay rent. However, despite not living at the address the tenant continued to use the property to keep their pets, majority of their belongings including clothing and furniture at the property, and as evidenced by the claim continued to exercise their rights of exclusive possession against the landlord. Despite this, the tenant sees themselves entitled to a full rent refund of all rent paid.

The tenant stopped paying rent on 26 October 2022, and then made two payments of $600.00 on 21 December 2022 and 29 December 2022, thereafter they made no more. I note that the landlord’s original application was for termination for rent arrears.

In this case the tenant has continued to exercise their rights of exclusive possession and use the property up until they agreed to end the tenancy on 28 January 2022. They cannot now claim, that despite doing so, they should not be liable to pay rent for that right.

In this case, from 08 October 2022 to 28 October 2022, I reduce the rent by half to $300.00 per week to take into account that the flood and subsequent drying had rendered the bedrooms temporarily unusable. From 28 October 2022, despite the tenant choosing to leave, which I find is likely due to the break down in the landlord / tenant relationship, and not that the property was unhabitable, that the rent should increase to $550.00 per week until the end of the tenancy. From this amount I deduct $100.00 for a baby-sitting fee agreed by the landlord. The total rent arrears owed by the tenant is $ 5,285.71. Has the tenant caused damage to a door, the carpet, the curtains, and the walls.

The landlord claims that the tenant is liable for damage to a door, the carpet in a bedroom, the backs of the curtains in a bedroom and lounge, and a hole wall in the lounge which is more than fair wear and tear.

The agreement allowed for the tenant to keep animals, which they did. The landlord states that the carpet contractor advised that the damage to the carpet in the bedroom had been caused by urine. The invoice which contains the observation of the carpet cleaner has been produced.

The landlord is claiming $994.75 to repair the wall, $1,109.75 to repair the door, and $4,246 .00 to replace the carpet in the lounge and bedroom, and $20.00 to replace the curtains.

To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 of the Act.

Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act 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) of the Act.

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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.

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) of the Act.

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.

In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.

In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. 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. In calculating depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

There is no pre tenancy checklist or photographs showing the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord has produced closeup photographs showing two sections of carpet pulled back, and the backs of two curtains. The tenant states that the previous tenant was also allowed to keep animals, this is not disputed, and that the carpet had pre-existing stains at the commencement of the tenancy. I also note that the carpet in both bedrooms had also been affected by the flood on 07 October 2022.

There is insufficient evidence that the carpet was damaged by urine during the tenancy. The claim is dismissed. There is no evidence regarding a damaged door. The claim is dismissed. Regarding the curtains, again the tenant claims that they were already in that state at the commencement of the tenancy. There is no evidence as to the condition of the curtains at the commencement of the tenancy. The claim is dismissed.

Dealing with the hole in the wall in the lounge located below a window. There is no dispute that this was intentionally caused by the tenant, who states that between 28 January 2023 and 31 January 2023, following the end of the tenancy but while they still had the keys , that they returned to the property and in order to show that the property was affected by dampness put their fingers into and pulled away a section of the wall whereafter they took a photograph. This is intentional damage for which the tenant is fully liable. I add that causing further damage to substantiate a potential claim is not appropriate. Taking into account the age and condition of the property, I do, however deduct 50% for betterment and award the landlord $479.37. Costs

Both parties seek reimbursement of their respective filing fees. Arguably both have at least been partly successful triggering the Tribunal’s discretion under section 102(4)(b) of the Act to order reimbursement of the filing fee. However, as reimbursing the filing fee to one would effectively cancel reimbursement to the other, and vice versa, I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fees. Name suppression

Both parties seek name suppression.

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.

In the case of Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZSC 135 at [2] - [3],[13], and [18], the Supreme Court stated the principle of open justice was fundamental to the common law system of civil and criminal justice. The Court stated that it was well established that there were circumstances in which the interests of justice required departure from the general principle, but only to the extent required to serve the administration of justice. The Court referred to the administration of justice standard as capable of accommodating the particular circumstances of individual cases with consideration given to the broader public interest. The Court went onto endorse the principle in ASB Bank Ltd v AB [2010] 3 NZLR 427 (HC), stating, that there must be specific adverse consequences sufficient to justify an exception to the rule, adding that the threshold was a high one.

The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

As outlined in previously submitted medical evidence the tenant faces ongoing health challenges. I am satisfied that publishing their name could likely be detrimental to their well-being. After careful consideration, I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to depart from the principle of open justice and exercise discretion under section 95A(4) to suppress the tenant’s name.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4471420 — net $4,633.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 28 January 2024	$5,285.71		Rent arrears to 28 January 2024
Damage to wall	$497.37		Damage to wall
Exemplary damages		$250.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$5,783.08	$250.00
Net award	$4,633.08
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,633.08

[The landlord/s] states that the door was rehung but cannot recall whether the locking mechanism was replaced before the contractors advised that they had completed the work on 17 October 2023.

There is no dispute that the bond, which was paid on 01 June 2022, was not lodged within the required period.

I am satisfied that there has been a breach of the Act concerning the bond. The issue is exemplary damages.

The landlord claims that the tenant owes rent arrears. The tenant states they do not owe rent arears and in fact should receive a refund of all the rent they have paid.

The landlord is claiming $994.75 to repair the wall, $1,109.75 to repair the door, and $4,246 .00 to replace the carpet in the lounge and bedroom, and $20.00 to replace the curtains.

Both parties seek name suppression.

The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4471420 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4471420 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions