What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4573809?

The tribunal order states: Angela Lee must pay David Brian Carr $4,595.93 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4573809?

Cleaning: $225.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $95.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,342.86 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,927.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,133.69 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4573809?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4573809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9716955-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4573809?

The tribunal order states: Angela Lee must pay David Brian Carr $4,595.93 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4573809?

Cleaning: $225.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $95.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,342.86 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,927.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,133.69 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4573809?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4573809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9716955-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 201, 1C Soljak Place, Mount Albert, Auckland 1025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4573809 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4573809 — net $4,344.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,342.86	Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$225.00	Carpet Cleaning
Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement	$1,927.50	Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement
Replace furnishings: Curtains replacement	$1,133.69	Replace furnishings: Curtains replacement
Lock/key replacement: Garage door remote controller	$95.00	Lock/key replacement: Garage door remote controller
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,344.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,344.49

Order

Angela Lee must pay David Brian Carr $4,595.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$3,342.86 Carpet Cleaning$225.00 Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement$1,927.50 Replace furnishings: Curtains replacement$1,133.69 Lock/key replacement: Garage door remote controller$95.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$6,744.49 Bond$2,400.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,344.49

Reasons

Appointment of Representation

The property is owned by Mr David Carr, the landlord.
Previously, Mr Peter Carr, Mr David Carr's father, managed the property until the tenant, Ms Angela Lee, moved out of the house.
Mr David Carr applied to the Tribunal to appoint his brother, Mr Michael Carr, as the representative.
Mr David Carr lives in another jurisdiction and could not attend the hearing. “So originally, when the previous arbitration or sorry, mediation. Mediation. When the previous mediation was scheduled for here in this building, Peter [Carr] was going to be away out of country. So we did all the documentation to change it to me. And then Peter [Carr] told me everything that's going on and whatnot, and then he went away, and then it got delayed. And he's back now, but we sort of figured it's easier just to leave it as it is. Have me turn up and we can go over everything.”
During the hearing, Mr Michael Carr provided evidence that he had sufficient knowledge of the case and that his brother, Mr David Carr, would abide by the Tribunal's decision. Based on this evidence, I am satisfied that Mr Michael Carr has adequate knowledge of the case and sufficient authority to act as Mr David Carr's representative. Hearing in the tenant’s absence
The tenant, Ms. Angela Lee, did not attend the hearing.
The landlord filed his application on 20 April 2023, while Ms. Angela Lee filed a cross-application on 17 May 2023.
Mr. Michael Carr informed me that Ms. Angela Lee attended the mediation via phone on 19 May 2023.
On 4 May 2023, Tenancy Services sent a mediation hearing notice to Ms. Angela Lee via email. Ms. Angela Lee attended the mediation hearing via phone.
Furthermore, on 2 December and 4 December 2023, Tenancy Services sent a text message to Ms. Angela Lee's cell number and an email to her email address, reminding her that the hearing is scheduled for 9:30 am on 4 December 2023.
Based on the above, I am satisfied that Ms. Angela Lee was informed of date of the hearing (4 December 2023). Therefore, the hearing will proceed in Ms. Angela Lee's absence
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

Ms. Angela Lee signed a fixed-term tenancy agreement for 12 months, starting from 19 June 2021, and ending on 17 June 2022.
On 17 January 2022, Ms Angela Lee informed the landlord that she wanted to terminate the agreement "early" and leave the premises on 28 January 2022. The landlord agreed to this, provided that Ms. Angela Lee paid the rent until the premises were re-tenanted.
The landlord later instructed a professional property manager who found a new tenant, and the new tenancy began on 3 March 2022.
The unpaid rent was for the period between 28 January 2022, and 2 March 2022, amounting to $3,342.86.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Letting fee
The landlord requested to be reimbursed for the letting fee.
Mr Michael Carr argued that the landlord had to find a new tenant to compensate for the loss caused by Ms Angela Lee's early termination of the tenancy.
I do not accept Mr Michael Carr's argument because according to section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord must mitigate the loss.
The landlord would have had to find a new tenant, whether or not the tenancy was terminated early. The early termination did not change this fact.
Therefore, there is no justification for reimbursing the landlord for the letting fee. Accordingly, I decline the application for reimbursement of the letting fee. Power reconnection fee
The landlord applied for the reimbursement of the power reconnection fee claiming that Ms. Angela Lee's power was cut off due to non-payment of her power bill.
However, I declined to reimburse the landlord for the following reasons: a. Firstly, the landlord had no evidence to support his claim that the power was in arrears. b. Secondly, even if the landlord could prove that the power was in arrears, he failed to explain why he did not contact the power company after Ms. Angela Lee vacated the premises. Section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that the landlord must take reasonable steps to mitigate their loss. In the landlord’s case, I highly doubt the landlord did anything to mitigate the loss.
Therefore, I cannot conclude that the tenant is liable for the power reconnection fee based on the balance of probabilities.

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

At the end of the tenancy Ms Angela Lee 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.
Ms Angela Lee did not return the garage remote controller.
The landlord sought reimbursement of $95 for replacing the garage remote controller. The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. An unauthorised cat urinating on the carpet. b. An unauthorised cat damaged the curtains. An unauthorised cat urinating on the carpet
The landlord claims that the property was purchased brand new in 2019 and that the carpet was in good condition according to the property inspection checklist when Ms. Angela took possession of it.
Mr. Michael Carr testified and explained how the discovery of the damage was made.: “So with the carpet, when the [tenant] moved out inspection was done, the carpets were dirty and there was pet hair, which was noticed. [Mr P]eter vacuumed it himself and the carpets looked cleaner and good. And then when he was there, the doors and the windows this January, it was open, the apartment was well ventilated, there wasn't any unusual smells or anything and then after it was closed up and prospective tenants were coming through, they and the new property manager noticed a smell of cat urine.”
Mr Michael Carr further said that a professional carpet layer visited the property multiple times to figure out the type and colour of the carpet.
According to Mr. Michael Carr, multiple visits were required to ensure that the patching blended in with the rest of the carpet. Mr. Peter Carr contacted Ms. Angela Lee after the damage was discovered, and Ms. Angela Lee admitted to having a kitten on the property. An unauthorised cat damaged the curtains.
Ms. Angela Lee accepted she had brought an unauthorised cat onto the property which caused damage to the curtains.
When I asked Mr. Michael Carr about the damage, he stated that the curtains would have to be replaced instead of being repaired as the fabric had been damaged.
It is understandable that a kitten may use its paws to scratch the lower part of the curtains, but in doing so, the fabric of the curtains was damaged. The damage cannot be
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I have taken into account 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, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
I consider that the appropriate compensation for the carpet and curtains is as follows: a. Carpet cleaning - $225.00 b. Carpet replacement - $1,927.50 (75% of the carpet replacement cost). c. Curtains replacement - $1,133.69 (75% of the curtains replacement cost).
I consider reimbursing the landlord for his property manager's "expense fees" inappropriate. This is because the landlord is running a business by leasing his premises, and the "expense fees" are costs incurred by hiring a professional manager to work on the landlord's behalf. These costs include saving time by organising tradespeople and communicating with tenants. Accordingly, I decline to reimburse the landlord “expense fees”. Repairs and repainting to walls and doors
The landlord submitted photos during the hearing, depicting areas that required repairs and repainting. Mr. Michael Carr said in evidence: “And so there were a variety of marks in the apartment, some which were wear and tear, which the tenant cleaned off with acetone, which she uses to clean nail polish off her customers' hands. But there were other marks that were beyond wear and tear, they were dense to chipboard linings that went through the surface of the paper and these dents require filling and then sanding, flush and painting. It is our opinion that given a seven- month tenancy, the damage to the apartment was beyond their wear and tear, especially considering it was blemish-free before the tenancy began, but it wasn't an entire apartment repaint. That's the other thing I'll stress. We just repaired the walls that were damaged and I'll also add that so [Mr] Peter [Carr], he's a builder, so he filled and sanded the holes himself and there's no charge for that to try and speed up the process to get the new tenant in as quickly as possible. And also with the COVID delays at the time, it was difficult to get tradespeople in, so he just wanted to move it along to make things happen so that everyone can move on.”
These photos should have been submitted to the Tenancy Registry before the hearing.
The attached photos display the areas highlighted with green tape that require repair and repainting from a distance. However, I was unable to observe the damages that the landlord mentioned.
In the hearing, Mr. Michael Carr admitted that the landlord did not have pre- tenancy inspection photos and only had an inspection checklist confirming the walls were in good condition.
I told Mr. Michael Carr that without pre-tenancy inspection photos, I found it challenging to differentiate between pre-tenancy and post-tenancy conditions and identify the need for repairing and repainting the walls.
It is the landlord's responsibility to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage to the walls was not fair wear and tear. Based on the evidence presented, I am not satisfied that the damage to the walls was not fair wear and tear. Filing fee
Because David Carr has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4573809 — net $4,344.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,342.86	Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$225.00	Carpet Cleaning
Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement	$1,927.50	Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement
Replace furnishings: Curtains replacement	$1,133.69	Replace furnishings: Curtains replacement
Lock/key replacement: Garage door remote controller	$95.00	Lock/key replacement: Garage door remote controller
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,344.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,344.49

Order

Angela Lee must pay David Brian Carr $4,595.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$3,342.86 Carpet Cleaning$225.00 Replace furnishings: Carpet replacement$1,927.50 Replace furnishings: Curtains replacement$1,133.69 Lock/key replacement: Garage door remote controller$95.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$6,744.49 Bond$2,400.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,344.49

Reasons

Appointment of Representation

The property is owned by Mr David Carr, the landlord.
Previously, Mr Peter Carr, Mr David Carr's father, managed the property until the tenant, Ms Angela Lee, moved out of the house.
Mr David Carr applied to the Tribunal to appoint his brother, Mr Michael Carr, as the representative.
Mr David Carr lives in another jurisdiction and could not attend the hearing. “So originally, when the previous arbitration or sorry, mediation. Mediation. When the previous mediation was scheduled for here in this building, Peter [Carr] was going to be away out of country. So we did all the documentation to change it to me. And then Peter [Carr] told me everything that's going on and whatnot, and then he went away, and then it got delayed. And he's back now, but we sort of figured it's easier just to leave it as it is. Have me turn up and we can go over everything.”
During the hearing, Mr Michael Carr provided evidence that he had sufficient knowledge of the case and that his brother, Mr David Carr, would abide by the Tribunal's decision. Based on this evidence, I am satisfied that Mr Michael Carr has adequate knowledge of the case and sufficient authority to act as Mr David Carr's representative. Hearing in the tenant’s absence
The tenant, Ms. Angela Lee, did not attend the hearing.
The landlord filed his application on 20 April 2023, while Ms. Angela Lee filed a cross-application on 17 May 2023.
Mr. Michael Carr informed me that Ms. Angela Lee attended the mediation via phone on 19 May 2023.
On 4 May 2023, Tenancy Services sent a mediation hearing notice to Ms. Angela Lee via email. Ms. Angela Lee attended the mediation hearing via phone.
Furthermore, on 2 December and 4 December 2023, Tenancy Services sent a text message to Ms. Angela Lee's cell number and an email to her email address, reminding her that the hearing is scheduled for 9:30 am on 4 December 2023.
Based on the above, I am satisfied that Ms. Angela Lee was informed of date of the hearing (4 December 2023). Therefore, the hearing will proceed in Ms. Angela Lee's absence
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

Ms. Angela Lee signed a fixed-term tenancy agreement for 12 months, starting from 19 June 2021, and ending on 17 June 2022.
On 17 January 2022, Ms Angela Lee informed the landlord that she wanted to terminate the agreement "early" and leave the premises on 28 January 2022. The landlord agreed to this, provided that Ms. Angela Lee paid the rent until the premises were re-tenanted.
The landlord later instructed a professional property manager who found a new tenant, and the new tenancy began on 3 March 2022.
The unpaid rent was for the period between 28 January 2022, and 2 March 2022, amounting to $3,342.86.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Letting fee
The landlord requested to be reimbursed for the letting fee.
Mr Michael Carr argued that the landlord had to find a new tenant to compensate for the loss caused by Ms Angela Lee's early termination of the tenancy.
I do not accept Mr Michael Carr's argument because according to section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the landlord must mitigate the loss.
The landlord would have had to find a new tenant, whether or not the tenancy was terminated early. The early termination did not change this fact.
Therefore, there is no justification for reimbursing the landlord for the letting fee. Accordingly, I decline the application for reimbursement of the letting fee. Power reconnection fee
The landlord applied for the reimbursement of the power reconnection fee claiming that Ms. Angela Lee's power was cut off due to non-payment of her power bill.
However, I declined to reimburse the landlord for the following reasons: a. Firstly, the landlord had no evidence to support his claim that the power was in arrears. b. Secondly, even if the landlord could prove that the power was in arrears, he failed to explain why he did not contact the power company after Ms. Angela Lee vacated the premises. Section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that the landlord must take reasonable steps to mitigate their loss. In the landlord’s case, I highly doubt the landlord did anything to mitigate the loss.
Therefore, I cannot conclude that the tenant is liable for the power reconnection fee based on the balance of probabilities.

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

At the end of the tenancy Ms Angela Lee 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.
Ms Angela Lee did not return the garage remote controller.
The landlord sought reimbursement of $95 for replacing the garage remote controller. The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. An unauthorised cat urinating on the carpet. b. An unauthorised cat damaged the curtains. An unauthorised cat urinating on the carpet
The landlord claims that the property was purchased brand new in 2019 and that the carpet was in good condition according to the property inspection checklist when Ms. Angela took possession of it.
Mr. Michael Carr testified and explained how the discovery of the damage was made.: “So with the carpet, when the [tenant] moved out inspection was done, the carpets were dirty and there was pet hair, which was noticed. [Mr P]eter vacuumed it himself and the carpets looked cleaner and good. And then when he was there, the doors and the windows this January, it was open, the apartment was well ventilated, there wasn't any unusual smells or anything and then after it was closed up and prospective tenants were coming through, they and the new property manager noticed a smell of cat urine.”
Mr Michael Carr further said that a professional carpet layer visited the property multiple times to figure out the type and colour of the carpet.
According to Mr. Michael Carr, multiple visits were required to ensure that the patching blended in with the rest of the carpet. Mr. Peter Carr contacted Ms. Angela Lee after the damage was discovered, and Ms. Angela Lee admitted to having a kitten on the property. An unauthorised cat damaged the curtains.
Ms. Angela Lee accepted she had brought an unauthorised cat onto the property which caused damage to the curtains.
When I asked Mr. Michael Carr about the damage, he stated that the curtains would have to be replaced instead of being repaired as the fabric had been damaged.
It is understandable that a kitten may use its paws to scratch the lower part of the curtains, but in doing so, the fabric of the curtains was damaged. The damage cannot be
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I have taken into account 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, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
I consider that the appropriate compensation for the carpet and curtains is as follows: a. Carpet cleaning - $225.00 b. Carpet replacement - $1,927.50 (75% of the carpet replacement cost). c. Curtains replacement - $1,133.69 (75% of the curtains replacement cost).
I consider reimbursing the landlord for his property manager's "expense fees" inappropriate. This is because the landlord is running a business by leasing his premises, and the "expense fees" are costs incurred by hiring a professional manager to work on the landlord's behalf. These costs include saving time by organising tradespeople and communicating with tenants. Accordingly, I decline to reimburse the landlord “expense fees”. Repairs and repainting to walls and doors
The landlord submitted photos during the hearing, depicting areas that required repairs and repainting. Mr. Michael Carr said in evidence: “And so there were a variety of marks in the apartment, some which were wear and tear, which the tenant cleaned off with acetone, which she uses to clean nail polish off her customers' hands. But there were other marks that were beyond wear and tear, they were dense to chipboard linings that went through the surface of the paper and these dents require filling and then sanding, flush and painting. It is our opinion that given a seven- month tenancy, the damage to the apartment was beyond their wear and tear, especially considering it was blemish-free before the tenancy began, but it wasn't an entire apartment repaint. That's the other thing I'll stress. We just repaired the walls that were damaged and I'll also add that so [Mr] Peter [Carr], he's a builder, so he filled and sanded the holes himself and there's no charge for that to try and speed up the process to get the new tenant in as quickly as possible. And also with the COVID delays at the time, it was difficult to get tradespeople in, so he just wanted to move it along to make things happen so that everyone can move on.”
These photos should have been submitted to the Tenancy Registry before the hearing.
The attached photos display the areas highlighted with green tape that require repair and repainting from a distance. However, I was unable to observe the damages that the landlord mentioned.
In the hearing, Mr. Michael Carr admitted that the landlord did not have pre- tenancy inspection photos and only had an inspection checklist confirming the walls were in good condition.
I told Mr. Michael Carr that without pre-tenancy inspection photos, I found it challenging to differentiate between pre-tenancy and post-tenancy conditions and identify the need for repairing and repainting the walls.
It is the landlord's responsibility to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage to the walls was not fair wear and tear. Based on the evidence presented, I am not satisfied that the damage to the walls was not fair wear and tear. Filing fee
Because David Carr has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4573809 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 201, 1C Soljak Place, Mount Albert, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4573809 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 201, 1C Soljak Place, Mount Albert, Auckland 1025

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?

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?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions