What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4605669?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (3399143-010) to Paula King

How much money was awarded in case 4605669?

Compensation: (breach of quiet enjoy…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (Over payment of rent…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (Over payment of rent…: $218.57 awarded to tenant; (Kitchen Cabinetry: $182.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4605669?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4605669?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9840644-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4605669?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (3399143-010) to Paula King

How much money was awarded in case 4605669?

Compensation: (breach of quiet enjoy…: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (Over payment of rent…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (Over payment of rent…: $218.57 awarded to tenant; (Kitchen Cabinetry: $182.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4605669?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4605669?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9840644-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8A Moera Place, Stanmore Bay, Whangaparaoa 0932 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4605669 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4605669 — net $736.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: (Kitchen cabinetry	$182.50		Repairs: (Kitchen cabinetry
Compensation: (Over payment of rent from 1/11/22 to		$300.00	(Over payment of rent from 1/11/22 to
Compensation: (Over payment of rent from 13/06/23 to		$218.57	(Over payment of rent from 13/06/23 to
Compensation: (breach of quiet enjoyment and		$400.00	(breach of quiet enjoyment and
Total award	$182.50	$918.57
Net award		$736.07
Bond		$2,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$736.07

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4605669 — net $736.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: (Kitchen cabinetry	$182.50		Repairs: (Kitchen cabinetry
Compensation: (Over payment of rent from 1/11/22 to		$300.00	(Over payment of rent from 1/11/22 to
Compensation: (Over payment of rent from 13/06/23 to		$218.57	(Over payment of rent from 13/06/23 to
Compensation: (breach of quiet enjoyment and		$400.00	(breach of quiet enjoyment and
Total award	$182.50	$918.57
Net award		$736.07
Bond		$2,000.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$736.07

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (3399143-010) to Paula King immediately.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of Paula King at 8A Moera Place, Stanmore Bay, Whangaparaoa 0932 is reduced and now ends at 11:59pm on Monday 12 June 2023, 28 days after the tenant gave written notice on 16 May 2023.
Home Sweet Home Property Management Limited Acting Agent For James & Emma Miller must pay Paula King $736.07 immediately as calculated in the table below.
The landlords’ claim for reimbursement of the break lease costs of $666.40 has not been proven and is dismissed.
The landlords’ claim for reimbursement of the carpet stain removal has not been proven and is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond to her, overpayment of $340.00 rent to be reimbursed, orders that the rent increase notice given to her on 17 August 2022 was invalid, reduction of fixed term tenancy to 12 June 2023, not to be held responsible for the break lease fees charged by the property manager, compensation for stress/inconvenience/breach of quiet enjoyment of the premises, not to be held responsible for the carpet stain removal fee and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord made a cross application for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Suppression of landlord name and identifying details
An application for suppression has been made by the landlord.
The landlord did not provide any evidence to the Tribunal that they may suffer extreme hardship nor that it would not be in the public interest if their name was made public. Therefore, as the substantially unsuccessful party, the landlord’s application for name suppression and suppression of their identifying details is not granted.

Should the Tribunal grant a reduction of the fixed term sought by the tenant?

On 14 May 2023, the tenant asked the landlords/owners if she could end the fixed term tenancy earlier than 30 October 2023, as she had suffered physical and emotional health issues, had lost her job and was under significant financial and emotional stress. Therefore, she could no longer afford the $510.00 per week rent and needed to move to a more peaceful environment. Further, she stated that she had not asked the property manager about reducing the fixed term as she was finding the current property manager cold, unfeeling, and never available to speak to by phone or in person. Given the landlords resided next door, and they had told her that she was welcome to discuss any issues she had directly with them, she considered it appropriate to discuss her private health and financial issues with them.
The tenant says the landlords gave her their consent to end the fixed term tenancy by the giving of 28 days’ notice and that Mrs Miller gave her a hug and made her feel like the landlords had both heard and acknowledged her plight.
On 15 May 2023, the tenant, based on the landlords’ promise the day before, spoke to her previous landlord who was happy to have her back and offered her a suitable tenancy for $30.00 less per week. Based on the landlords’ promise, she accepted that offer and entered into a new tenancy agreement. Had she not had their agreement to reduce the fixed term lease she says she would not have accepted this new tenancy as she was not in a fiscal position to do so.
On 16 May 2023, the tenant claims the landlords informed her they had called the property manager and the property manager had asked them to convey to the tenant that she must give her written notice to the property manager.
On 16 May 2023, the tenant gave her written notice of 28 days to the property manager, as she had been instructed to do by the landlords. The notice confirmed that her tenancy would end on 12 June 2023.
The property manager responded that she had spoken to the landlords, and they denied agreeing to allow the tenant to end the fixed term tenancy early by giving 28 days’ notice, that her tenancy would continue until a new tenant moved into the premises and that she would be liable for the break lease costs outlined in a schedule provided. There was email evidence from the property manager’s manager that states she was also informed by the landlords that they had not verbally agreed to the reduction in the fixed term. It is of note that there was no direct evidence from the landlords that refuted the tenant’s evidence and the landlords’ did not attend the hearing to confirm what the property manager alleged they told her and what the property manager’s manager says the landlords told her.
The tenant told the Tribunal she was distraught as she had signed a new tenancy agreement with a move in date that matched the end of this tenancy being 12 June 2023. She was not in a financial position to pay two lots of rent post 12 June 2023 and considered she could find a new tenant for less cost than was quoted by the property manager for advertising the premises.
The tenant advertised and screen potential new tenants herself, which the property manager claimed led to increased background check and credit check costs as the types of tenants that apply through private letting channels are not the same quality and those that apply through an agency due to the stricter vetting processes used by agencies. The tenant found a new tenant, to whom the lease was assigned. That tenant moved into the premises on 16 June 2023.
The landlords have subsequently made a claim for $666.40 made up of: a. 4 background checks at $100.00 b. 2 credit checks at $50.00 c. Approved applicant paperwork of $60.00 d. Outgoing inspection at $153.20 e. Ingoing inspection for the new tenant at $183.20 f. Communication between tenant and owner regarding assigning the lease of $60.00 g. Arranging additional cleaning and repairs between tenancies at $60.00.
The tenant applied to the Tribunal, on 26 May 2023, for reduction of the fixed- term tenancy, due to end on 30 October 2023. She has applied for her the term of her tenancy to be reduced to 12 June 2023 in accordance with the promise she says the landlords/owners gave her, that she relied on to her detriment and from which they should be estopped from resiling.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There has been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances. The tenant provided evidence that she had been in hospital for major surgery and is suffering physical, mental and emotional health issues as well as severe financial hardship. She attended the hearing with a Community Support Worker who has been assisting her to navigate life post the loss of her health and her job.
The landlord owners did not attend the Tribunal hearing to give evidence or provide a written statement to the Tribunal refuting the tenant’s claims they agreed to reducing her fixed term tenancy and agreeing to her vacating the premises without penalty on the giving of 28 days’ notice to the property manager. Therefore, I prefer the tenant’s evidence that she was given that permission by the landlord owners, she relied on that permission when she entered a new tenancy and the landlords/owners should not be allowed to resile from that promise. As such, I reduce the fixed term tenancy and hold that it ended on 12 June 2023.
Even if I had not accepted the tenant’s evidence of the landlords’ promise, in the alternative I find the tenant would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced. She has lost her job and is too unwell to work. As such her income has been significantly reduced, her rent had been increased unlawfully when she was issued an unlawful and invalid 60-day notice of the rent increase on 17 August 2023, and she was put in a position where she could no longer afford $510.00 per week and still pay for other essentials such as food and power. In addition, she was facing a situation where she may have to pay double rent for a period until she found a new tenant suitable to and accepted by the Landlords’ agent.
The property manager claimed the landlord would suffer hardship if the term is reduced, but did not provide any evidence to support that claim
I find that the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship.
Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See section 66(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In all the circumstances, I do not find it appropriate to reimburse the landlords the costs of finding a new tenant or the administration costs associated with the new tenancy. The costs associated with the reduction of the fixed term tenancy should lie where they fall and I dismiss the landlords’ claim for the break lease costs to be reimbursed.
Further, given that the landlord has consented to the tenant being able to end the fixed term tenancy by given 28 days’ notice as set out at [18] above, I consider that the fixed term tenancy duly ended on 12 June 2023. Consequently, no further rent is payable after that date and the landlord is unable to claim any lost rent or reletting fees incurred.

Is the 17 August 2022 rent increase notice valid?

The fixed term tenancy agreement that commenced on 9 November 2021 and ended on 25 October 2022 (“TA1”) states clearly that the landlords are James and Emma Miler and that Home Sweet Home Property Management Limited are their appointed agent.
TA1 also records the rent payable as being $500.00 per week. The tenant agreed to rent the premises under the terms in TA1 and considered the rent charged to be a fair market rate.
The landlords’ agent stated that at the end of July 2022, a renewal of fixed term tenancy was uploaded to the tenant’s portal (“TA2”). Further, at the time TA2 was uploaded, the landlords had not contemplated raising the tenants rent. Therefore, this document does not record any rent increase for the further agreed fixed term tenancy period from 26 October 2022 to 30 October 2023.
The landlords’ agent confirmed the tenant was sent several automated reminders about the need to renew the fixed term tenancy, that was due to expire on 25 October 2022. The tenant’s evidence was that she had found the current property manager distant, passive/aggressive, belligerent, derogatory, uncompromising, uncommunicative, hard to get hold of by phone or in person and threatening, and that this led to her reluctance to enter into a further fixed term tenancy agreement with the landlords’ agent as she stated her mental and emotional health and wellbeing was being significantly compromised by her interactions with this property manager. She was unaware that her tenancy would have become periodic if she had not signed TA2. Therefore, she stated that she left signing this renewal of fixed term tenancy until the last minute but felt pressured to sign it or she may face eviction on 25 October 2022.
The tenant could not remember the date she signed TA2, but the landlords’ agent clearly signed it on 17 August 2022.
When the tenant signed TA2, she confirmed she also initialled the “current rent amount” of $500.00 to confirm that she was agreeing to a further fixed term tenancy at that rental rate. She also noted that there was nothing in the “date rent increase to take effect” section of TA2 and nothing in the “new rent amount if applicable” section.
During the hearing, the landlords’ agent claimed that TA2 is not a new tenancy agreement, but an extension of TA1 and its terms and that the rent can be increased at any time during the term of TA2 after 9 November 2022, being 12 months after the first fixed term tenancy period commenced. Further she cited clause 24 of TA1 reads “Rent Reviews- The landlord may review the rent from time to time and may increase the in accordance with s24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. No increase will take effect within 12 months after the date of the commencement of the tenancy or within 12 months after the date on which the last increase took effect” as giving the landlords agent the right to increase the tenant’s rent during the term TA2 was in force.
Section 60A of the RTA contemplates the parties agreeing to extend the current fixed term tenancy agreement, renewing the tenancy for a further fixed term at a fixed rate for the next 12 months or letting the current fixed term tenancy agreement roll over into a periodic tenancy. It does not contemplate the landlord being able to lock the tenant into a new fixed term period, thereby denying the tenant the right to terminate the tenancy before the end of the fixed term without incurring penalties but allows at the same time allowing the landlord to rely on the terms of the previous fixed term tenancy agreement when it comes to increasing the rent.
TA2 was, in accordance with s60A of the RTA, a new fixed term tenancy agreement. It was not an extension of TA1. When the landlord entered into TA2, it could have negotiated to increase the rent from 9 November 2022, so long as that date and the new weekly rent amount was recorded in TA2. No rent increase was recorded in TA2, despite the landlords’ agent sending the tenant a notice of rent increase from 25 October 2022 in an email on the same date the landlords’ agent signed TA2. Any notice of rent increase or implementation of a rent increase after the date of commencement of TA2 is unlawful.
In addition, the notice of rent increase emailed to the tenant on 17 August 2022 is unlawful and invalid as it is a breach of s24 of the RTA and of TA1.
Section 24(1)(d) of the RTA confirms “the rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date of the commencement of the tenancy”.
Section 24(1)(g) of the RTA confirms “a landlord under a fixed-term tenancy may not increase the rent during the term of the tenancy unless permitted by the provisions of the tenancy agreement to do so; and may do so only in accordance with this section and any such provisions of the tenancy agreement”.
The tenancy commenced on 9 November 2021. The 60-day notice increasing the tenant’s rent from $500.00 per week to $510.00 per week from 25 October 2022 is invalid and cannot be relied on by the landlord for the rental increase it implemented from 15 November 2022 (on the rent summary provided) but that was paid by the tenant from 25 October 2022 as per the notice.
Prior to starting to pay the new rental rate, the tenant had objected to the rent increase in an email to the landlords’ agent, stating it was placing the rent above market rate. The landlords’ agent confirmed rentals in Stanmore Bay for a standalone 2-bedroom house was between $495.00 to $575.00 per week, the rent included internet and water and was therefore below market rate even at $510.00 per week. She also objected to the rent being increased before the 12-month statutory period.
The landlords’ agent delay implementing the rent increase until 15 November 2022, but did not notify the tenant of the delay in implementation or the reason for the delayed implementation. Further, she accepted the payment for $510.00 per week from the tenant from 25 October 2022, with the first payment of $20.00 being made by the tenant on 1 November 2022 for the $10.00 increased rent per week for the week prior and that week. In addition, the landlords’ agent did not retract the invalid 60 day rent increase notice and issue a valid notice as soon as she became aware the notice she had issued was unlawful.
Section 24 (4) of the RTA states “Where a landlord has given a notice to increase the rent and subsequently realises that, because of: (a) some error in calculating the day on which the increased rent is to become payable or in the manner in which that day is expressed in the notice; or (b) Some delay in serving the notice the day fixed in the notice for the increased rent to become payable is in contravention of subsection (1), the landlord may, with the agreement of the tenant or (failing such agreement) with the consent of the Tribunal, give to the tenant a further notice varying the original notice so as to bring the terms of the original notice into accord with the provisions of that subsection”.
Section 24(6) of the RTA confirms “The Tribunal shall not give its consent under subsection (4) unless it is satisfied: (a) that the error or the delay was inadvertent; and (b) that the landlord has sought to correct the matter as soon as practicable; and (c) that it would not be unfair to the tenant to allow the original notice to be varied in the manner proposed”.
The landlords’ agent’s error and delay was not inadvertent, she did nothing to correct the matter as soon as practicable and it would be unfair to the tenant to allow the original notice to be varied to read 15 November 2022 instead of 25 October 2022. Therefore, the rent increase notice is held to be unlawful, invalid and of no effect.
The tenant is therefore owed the additional $300.00 of rent she paid over 30 weeks from 1 November 2022 to 12 June 2023, when her tenancy has been deemed by the Tribunal to have ended. Alleged breach of quiet enjoyment and access breaches
The tenant gave evidence that the property manager was unreasonably harsh and inflexible when it came to undertaking property inspections. She produced text messages and emails that showed the property manager would not give a reasonable window of time that she would undertake the inspections nor would she accommodate the tenant’s wish to be present when property inspections were carried out either during or at the end of the tenancy.
In addition, the tenant’s evidence showed the property manager would not reschedule property inspections even when the tenant was in hospital recovering from major surgery and had been too unwell to present her home in a reasonably clean and tidy state. This particular incident caused the tenant enormous amounts of stress and pressure and compounded her emotional, mental and physical health issues.
The property manager also confirmed at the hearing that she is not flexible in scheduled property inspection dates and times as she has a backlog after COVID-19 led to so many having to be rescheduled. She also explained that landlord’s insurance would be invalidated if the regular inspections were not carried out in a timely manner. Further she confirmed that she gave the tenant legal notice of the date she would carry out each property inspection, but indicated that inspection could be carried out anytime on that day between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening.
I find that it is unreasonable that the property manager would not reschedule a property inspection when the tenant is gravely ill and recovering from surgery and was not unreasonably withholding her consent to the inspection.
I also find that it is unreasonable that the property manager refused to accommodate the tenant’s reasonable conditions to be present when the inspections were carried out and that she would not give the tenant a two- hour window of time in which she could expect the inspections to be undertaken on inspection days.
I find that giving such a wide span of times of the day where the property manager may enter the premises, for the purposes of undertaking an inspection, in addition to refusing to accommodate the tenant’s reasonable express preference to be present during inspections is the landlord interfering with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in her use of the premises and causing her stress and inconvenience. See section 38(2) RTA.
I award compensation of $400.00 to the tenant for breach of her quiet enjoyment of the premises and for the stress and inconvenience she suffered from not being permitted to be present during property inspections and having to wait all day for the inspections to take place if she wanted to be there when they occurred.

Is the tenant responsible for the costs of the removal of 4 carpet stains?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant left the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and had the carpet cleaned by her daughter who is a professional commercial cleaner by trade. Her daughter gave evidence that she undertook a full clean of the carpets on the evening of 9 June 2023, after the tenant had moved out. The daughter’s evidence was that there were some stains on the carpet that would require special spot cleaning. She wanted to let the carpet dry from the initial clean and to return to address the carpet stains prior to 12 June 2023, which was the date the landlords wanted the tenant to move, although the landlords wanted the tenant to continuing paying rent for a further three days to allow them time to clean the premises and remedy any damage prior to the new tenant moving in on 16 June 2023.
The tenant’s evidence was that she was so stressed by the conduct of the property manager that she made moved out as early as she could and had been prepared to live in her car until she could move into her new premises. This motivated her to return the key to the property manager early, thereby not being able to let her daughter back in to remedy the carpet stains before the end of the tenancy. She had paid the rent to 15 June 2023, as such her daughter should have been allowed in to remedy the stains up to 5pm that day.
The parties gave evidence that the property manager refused to let the tenant’s daughter in to undertake the spot clean, stating that once the tenant had handed back the keys she knew she was not able to enter the premises and the landlord could get a provider of their choice to remove the carpet stains.
The property manager also gave evidence that there were pet odours from the tenant’s dog and cat and that the tenancy agreement provided for a full commercial carpet clean to be undertaken by the tenant at the end of the tenancy because the landlords had allowed the tenant to have pets.
The tenant’s community support worker gave evidence that she had been to the home many times and there was no such odour.
The property manager also gave evidence there had not been a full commercial clean of the carpet and suggested the tenant’s daughter probably hired a rug doctor. The tenant responded that her daughter is a commercial cleaner by trade and had used her commercial cleaning gear.
The property manager gave evidence that she had emailed the tenant on 8 June 2023 informing her that she was required to move out on 12 June 2023 and had continuing obligations to pay rent until 15 June 2023. I find that is unlawful for the landlords to require the tenant to pay for three additional days after the date she was required to given them vacant possession and have ordered those three days rent overpayment to be reimbursed to the tenant.
In addition, the tenant had been required to pay rent to 15 June 2023 and was entitled to have her daughter re-enter the home to undertake spot cleaning of the carpet up to 5pm on 15 June 2023 so she could hand the premises back reasonably clean and tidy and undamaged. The property manager had the carpet stains removed on 14 June 2023, a day before the tenant’s tenancy ended. I therefore dismiss the landlords claim for reimbursement of $248.40 carpet cleaning costs as the cost was incurred within the period the tenant was still paying rent and the tenant had only surrendered the keys for the convenience of the landlords. Is the tenant responsible for the cost of repairing the damage to the kitchen cabinetry?
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 tenant made several holes in the kitchen cabinetry during the tenancy, which she does not refute. She claims the previous property manager gave her consent to hang some items up that required nails being put into the kitchen cabinetry area.
The tenant could not prove that she had any written permission for inserting the nails into the cabinetry.
The tenancy agreement requires written consent for this type of fixture to be put up in the premises.
Further, s42(1) of the RTA states “the tenant shall not affix any fixture to the premises, or make any renovation, alteration, or addition of or to the premises, except in accordance with the tenancy agreement or with the prior written consent of the landlord.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved and have been awarded.
I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with her claim I must reimburse the filing fee. The landlord’s claims have substantially failed and its claim for reimbursement of its filing fee is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4605669 — Property damage at 8A Moera Place, Stanmore Bay, Whangaparaoa 0932

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4605669 — Property damage at 8A Moera Place, Stanmore Bay, Whangaparaoa 0932

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal grant a reduction of the fixed term sought by the tenant?

Is the 17 August 2022 rent increase notice valid?

Is the tenant responsible for the costs of the removal of 4 carpet stains?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal grant a reduction of the fixed term sought by the tenant?

Is the 17 August 2022 rent increase notice valid?

Is the tenant responsible for the costs of the removal of 4 carpet stains?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions