What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4746012 about?

The tribunal order states: Shana Quinliegh Kidwell must pay [The landlord/s] $2,210.75 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4746012?

The reconciled net award was $2,344.74.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4746012?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Leaks, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4746012?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10902579-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4746012 about?

The tribunal order states: Shana Quinliegh Kidwell must pay [The landlord/s] $2,210.75 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4746012?

The reconciled net award was $2,344.74.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4746012?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Harassment, Leaks, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4746012?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10902579-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4746012 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4746012 — net $2,344.74 NZD. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason
Net award	$2,344.74

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4746012 — net $2,344.74 NZD. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason
Net award	$2,344.74

Order

Shana Quinliegh Kidwell must pay [The landlord/s] $2,210.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Kidwell (“the tenant”) entered a tenancy agreement with [The landlord/s] (“the landlord”) for the premises situated at [Tenancy address suppressed] in November 2022. The tenancy commenced on 29 November 2022 and ended on 9 October 2023.
Both parties have filed applications with the Tribunal.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has filed a cross application for compensation of $20,000.00 and exemplary damages due to various breaches by the landlord of her obligations including: i. failing to lodge the bond within the required timeframe, ii, notice to end the tenancy was retaliatory iii. failing to maintain and repair the premises, iv. interfering with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises and privacy. The tenant also seeks reimbursement of excessive power bills due to the broken hot water cylinder.
Before addressing the current claims, I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. This is referred to as the “onus of proof”. In other words, the applicant must establish with evidence that what they are claiming is more likely than not, correct.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
This matter was heard over two hearings on 14 March 2024 and 2 July 2024. Ms Kidwell attended both hearings. [The landlord/s] along with her friend [The landlord’s support person] (who has assisted her with a number of tenancy matters) attended both hearings. An interpreter of the mandarin language was present at both hearings.
While I have carefully considered all the evidence and submissions from the parties, I have only addressed the evidence and arguments to the extent necessary to explain my decision.
I apologise for the delay in issuing the decision and thank the parties for their patience. The landlord’s application

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

A tenant must pay rent as and when it falls due and is responsible for water charges incurred during the tenancy on the basis of consumption (see sections 40 and 39 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the RTA”)).
The tenancy was terminated by order of the Tribunal on 28 September 2023 (application [redacted]). The Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay the landlord rent arrears to 1 October 2023 ($5,360.00) and water rates ($1,163,40). The Tribunal has refunded the bond of $2,680.00 to the landlord to apply towards the outstanding debt.
Ms Kidwell applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal’s decision which was dismissed on the papers on 5 October 2023.
An eviction took place on 9 October 2023.
The landlord has filed a claim for additional rent arrears of $765.00 (being 8 days rent from 2 October 2023 to 9 October 2023) and water rates of $215.72.
The landlord provided rent records claiming and a water rates invoice which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, as ordered above.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations?

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) RTA.
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 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.
In considering compensation for damages, the Tribunal is required to take 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.
The landlord is claiming a total of $4, 690.85 for various damages, which include the following expenses: a. Cash payment for installation: $277.26 paid in cash to the landlord’s friend for installing doors and locks. b. Purchase of doors: $900.00 for 4 doors, including handles. c. Installation of rangehood and curtain rails: $517.00 d. Purchase of curtain material: $179.25, broken down as $12.00 + $77.25 + $90.00. e. Equipment for on-site curtain manufacturing and curtain tracks: $368,60, consisting of $193.60 + $175.00. f. Labour for replacing door locks: $690.00 after the eviction process. g. Bin Rental (9 cubic) meters): $419.75 h. Installation of carpet: $900.00 i. Carpet cleaner rental: $133.99
In support of these claims, he landlord relied on repair quotes, receipts, invoices, cash sales, and photographs. The landlord expressed financial strain and performed some repairs herself, aware that insurance payouts for her claims were uncertain. The insurance company AMI Insurance, informed her that each claim would be treated separately, incurring a $700.00 excess per claim. This reduced the landlord’s total claim payout from AMI to $1,800.00 (net of excess), as they categorised each door and damage as separate incidents. The landlord also pointed out that some repairs made by the tenant were subpar, leading to a builder recommending replacement instead of repair for cost-effectiveness.
Rubbish removal: There was conflicting evidence regarding the rubbish left at the premises. The tenant claimed that, due to the circumstances of the eviction, she was not given a fair opportunity to remove all her belongings, including the rubbish. In contrast, the landlord asserted that the tenant had sufficient time to collect her items but only took what she wanted, leaving the rubbish behind.
After considering the evidence, I prefer the landlord’s account. The photographic evidence provided by the landlord clearly shows a significant amount of rubbish left outside the property. This supports the conclusion that the items left behind were most likely unwanted by the tenant and were in fact, rubbish. This indicates that the tenant failed to fulfil their obligation to remove it. I find the landlord’s claim for bin rental (9 cubic) meters) of $419.75 proved.
Missing curtains and curtain rails: The landlord claims that all the curtains and rail were missing at the end of the tenancy, while the tenant maintains that she removed the curtains and left them at the property. The tenant also claimed that the curtain rail was already damaged, a claim the landlord denied.
The landlord provided photographic evidence showing that the curtains and rails were in good condition at the start of the tenancy, which contradicts the tenant’s assertion that the rail was damaged. Additionally, these items were missing at the time of the eviction, and the tenant has not offered sufficient evidence to prove otherwise.
Based on the available evidence, I find that the tenant has not disproved her liability for the missing curtains and rail. The photographs provided by the landlord clearly show that the items were in place and in good condition at the beginning of the tenancy, and their absence at the end indicates a failure by the tenant to return them. Furthermore, the tenant has not provided any credible explanation for the disappearance of the curtains and rail. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for the missing curtains and rail is valid, and the tenant is liable for the costs associated with their replacement.
This finding is supported by the principle that tenant is responsible for returning all fixtures and furnishings provided at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable condition, and the tenant has failed to meet this obligation in this instance.
I find the following costs proved by the landlord: • Installation of curtain rails: $258.50 • Equipment for on-site curtain manufacturing and curtain tracks: $368.60
The estimated useful life for curtains in rental properties is 7 years. The material had reached 30% of its estimated useful life. Therefore, the tenant is liable for the remaining 70%. I therefore allow 70% of the landlord’s claim for curtain material, being $125.48.
The landlord also requested that the Tribunal consider 10 hrs of labour. I allow $25.00 per hour which I consider reasonable, totalling $250.00.
Carpet cleaning and damage: The photos provided by the landlord show the carpet in good condition at the start of the tenancy, even though the tenant claimed it was old. I accept the landlord's evidence that, at the end of the tenancy, the carpet was heavily soiled and stained, despite the tenant's denial. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the carpet was damaged, likely by dogs that the tenant kept in the house despite them not being allowed, and by burn marks resulting from the tenant using the fire.
I find that the tenant did not leave the carpet in a reasonably clean condition, justifying cleaning costs. The landlord’s claim for carpet cleaner rental of $133.99 is proved.
Although the landlord incurred costs for cleaning the carpet, the cleaning did not sufficiently improve its condition to avoid the need for replacement. The landlord indicated that the carpet is approximately 20 years old. The Tribunal must take into account the concepts of betterment and depreciation when assessing claims for compensation.
The estimated useful life for carpet in rental properties is 10 years. In this case, the carpet had well exceeded its estimated lifespan. Given its age and the natural depreciation that has occurred over time, it would not be reasonable to award compensation for the full replacement of the carpet, as doing so would provide the landlord with a “betterment”—a situation where the landlord would receive a brand-new carpet, which exceeds the value of what was lost.
Since the carpet was already near the end of its useful life, and replacement would essentially provide the landlord with a new item, no compensation can be awarded. The Tribunal must ensure that compensation reflects the actual loss suffered, not an improvement or upgrade beyond the value of the original carpet. Therefore, no award for replacement is justified in this case.
The landlord’s claim for installation of carpet of $900.00 is dismissed.
Doors: I find that all the doors were damaged to a varying degree during the tenancy, and the damage exceeds what can be considered fair wear and tear. The tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to disprove liability for this damage. I do not accept the tenant’s argument that the doors were made of cheap material as a justification for the damage. Regardless of the material quality, tenants are required to take reasonable care of the property, and the doors should not have sustained the level of damage observed.
Additionally, the tenant’s attempt to repair the doors did not meet acceptable workmanship standards. The repairs were inadequate and did not restore the doors to their original condition. I accept the landlord’s submission that, given the extent of the damage and the failed repair attempt, it was more cost- effective to replace the doors rather than continue attempting repairs. Therefore, the tenant is liable for the cost of replacement, as it was the most reasonable solution under the circumstances. The landlord’s costs for installation of the doors and locks $277.26 and purchase of the doors including handles $900.00 are proved.
Replacement of door locks: In this case, the replacement of the locks was necessary following the eviction to prevent the tenant from accessing the property after the legal termination of the tenancy. This step is a reasonable and standard part of securing the premises post-eviction to protect the landlord’s interest and ensure compliance with the termination order.
Given that the locks were replaced as a direct consequence of the eviction, I find that the costs incurred by the landlord are justified and reasonable. Therefore, the tenant is liable for these costs. The landlord’s claim for labour services to replace door locks as part of the eviction process ($690.00) is awarded.
Replacement rangehood and installation costs: The landlord claimed $299.00 for the replacement of a rangehood, along with $258.50 for installation costs. The landlord argued that the rangehood was damaged during the tenancy because the tenant failed to clean it properly. The tenant denied this, stating that the rangehood was not fully functional from the beginning of the tenancy and asserting that it had caught fire on its own without any action on her part.
In June 2023, [Electrical Company] assessed the rangehood and confirmed that it was no longer functional and could not be repaired. However, the electrician did not provide any opinion on the cause of the damage or the fire. In February 2024, , Senior Handyman of [Handymen Company] replaced the rangehood and offered his opinion that the damage was due to a lack of cleaning, which caused an accumulation of oily residue on the filter, leading to drips, burns, and ultimately the fire.
While the landlord provided an invoice for the replacement, no expert opinion was given to establish the extent of the damage or its probable cause. The Registered Electrician who inspected the rangehood in 2023 did not comment on what caused the fire or the malfunction.
Although the Senior Handyman attributed the fire to a lack of cleaning, he is not qualified to provide an expert opinion on the technical causes of the damage. As a result, his assessment does not hold enough evidential weight to support the landlord’s claim, especially in contrast to the Registered Electrician’s neutral findings.
The burden of proof lies with the landlord to show that the damage was caused by the tenant and that the claim is valid. In this case, the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant’s actions or neglect caused the rangehood to malfunction or catch fire.
Given the lack of expert testimony on the cause of the damage and the insufficiency of evidence to link the tenant’s conduct to the rangehood’s failure, the claim for the replacement of the rangehood is dismissed. The landlord has not met the required standard of proof that it is “more likely than not” that the tenant caused the damage. The landlord’s claim for the replacement rangehood and installation costs are dismissed. The tenant’s application

Did the landlord lodge the bond within the required timeframe?

Shana Quinliegh Kidwell claims the landlord did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord did not lodge the bond within the required timeframe. At that time, the landlord indicated that she was “still learning the ropes”. But she took steps to rectify the situation once she became aware of the oversight which she says was hampered by tenant’s refusal to sign the document. The bond centre advised the landlord to then lodge the bond form with her signature only, which she did. The bond was lodged on 8 May 2023.
The landlord has committed an unlawful act.
A bond is the tenant’s money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenant’s interests. Lodging a bond is a mandatory obligation and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent.
The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. Therefore, damages will not be awarded where non-lodgement is a genuine oversight, rather than an intentional act (Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls [1993] NZTT Auckland 548/92).
However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen. Exemplary damages have been awarded where: the landlord has no explanation for the non-lodgement and has other tenancies (Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01); the landlord is experienced (Hart v Allen Realty Ltd [2003] NZTT Auckland 2183/02).
The question is whether it is appropriate to award exemplary damages in this situation. I find the non-lodgement of the bond was intentional.
Failing to lodge the bond is a significant breach of the landlord’s obligations. A landlord is required to have proper systems in place to ensure the bond is lodged on time, and this failure represents a fundamental oversight. Even though the landlord eventually took steps to correct the error, the initial failure to comply is a serious matter.
The failure to lodge the bond causes considerable concern for tenants, as it compromises their ability to recover the bond at the end of the tenancy. The bond not being held with the Bond Centre means the tenant has less security in the event of a dispute, which is precisely what the legislation aims to avoid.
There is a considerable public interest in ensuring landlords comply with their obligations under the Act. Lodging a bond is a fundamental responsibility that safeguards tenants’ rights, and exemplary damages serve to reinforce the importance of this duty.
While the landlord has taken steps to remedy the situation, exemplary damages are warranted to underscore the importance of compliance with bond lodgement requirements.
Balancing these factors, I award exemplary damages of $200.00. This amount is modest, reflecting the landlord’s inexperience and corrective actions. However, it serves as a warning that future failures to lodge bonds in a timely manner may result in higher penalties. Was the landlord’s notice to end the tenancy retaliatory?
On 2 June 2023, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 29 November 2023. The tenant claims the notice was not valid and was retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant’s application was received on 30 November 2023, well outside the 28 working day timeframe required by section 54 RTA. I am not satisfied there are any grounds to extend the timeframe in this matter.
This claim is therefore dismissed.

Did the landlord breach their obligation to repair and maintain the premises?

A landlord is required to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises (section 45(1)(a)-(b) RTA. In addition, the landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings and health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises (section 45(1)(c) RTA) and all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
It is well settled law that, the landlord’s obligation under section 45 is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what that time 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.
The Tribunal can compensate a tenant if a landlord fails to meet their obligations. However, the obligation to repair was not absolute. Landlords, for example, are not required to foresee a latent or hidden defect before they cause damage (as established in Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey District Court, Auckland, CIV-2005-004-001762, 7 November 2007, citing Body Corporate 126001 v Chan [1998] DCR 270). Tenants also have a statutory duty to notify the landlord of any defects or of a need for repair, as soon as possible after discovery, (section 40(1)(d)) and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
The tenant says there were issues with the premises from the start. Despite repeated requests to the landlord, these issues were not addressed in a timely manner and as a result this had limited their use and enjoyment of the property. The tenant raised issues with the property concerning cockroach infestation, lock on the front door, oven extractor fan/rangehood, hot water cylinder, fireplace, leaking tap and toilet and smoke alarms. The tenant also says she had excessive power bills due to the broken hot water cylinder.
In response, the landlord disputed the tenant’s claims and asserts that she had taken reasonable steps to address their requests promptly. She disputed the gravity of the issues and inconvenience as described by the tenant. She also challenged the seriousness of the issues raised by the tenant and notes she was not informed of several concerns. Of concern was the validity of the 14 day letters submitted by the tenant which the landlord claims they had not received or seen until the filing of the application.
The landlord clarified that the front door issue was not related to locking but rather a loose mechanism. This was addressed immediately as an urgent matter. Both smoke alarms were confirmed to be functioning properly. There was no evidence of a cockroach infestation. The kent stove was found to be in good condition and approved for heating the home. The water cylinder was investigated and was not found to be broken. There was a minor leak early on which was quickly fixed. A follow up re-check on 28 May found no leaks. The tenant did not require the rangehood to be replaced during the tenancy. No evidence was produced to support excessive power bills. The landlord suggested that the high usage was more likely due to the high number of guests at the house.
The tenant has the responsibility to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities, meaning they must show that their version of events is more likely correct than not.
The conflicting views between the landlord and the tenant, combined with the absence of supporting evidence for the tenant's claims, led to a determination that the tenant's allegations were not sufficiently established.
Given these factors, I find this claim does not meet the necessary standard of proof, and therefore, it is dismissed. Did the landlord and her agent interfere with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises and privacy?
Shana Quinliegh Kidwell claims the landlord and her agent have harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant felt she had been treated unfairly and inappropriately by the landlord and her agent from the start. She believed she was vulnerable and was taken advantage of. She found living at the property distressful. This impacted significantly on her quiet enjoyment of the premises.
The tenant detailed various occasions where she said the agent for the landlord, [the landlord’s support person], breached her quiet enjoyment of the premises. The circumstances upon which the claim is based, included perversion, threatening her with a breach notice causing her to miss her nana’s tangi and unlawful entry without proper notice. This caused her emotional stress and anxiety.
The tenant described on going issues with privacy. She stated that she never felt able to live in the property without duress or disturbance from the landlord whose abrasive behaviour exacerbated the situation. According to the tenant, the landlord made frequent unannounced visits without prior notice, leaving her feeling that she had no privacy.
On the other hand, the landlord vehemently denied the tenant’s allegations. She alleged that the tenant was either making false allegations or over exaggerating. She maintained that [the landlord’s support person] was never her agent, he is a friend who occasionally assisted with some tenancy matters for her. This was supported by a letter from her daughter, who was in fact her appointed agent. The landlord maintained that any contact with the tenant was for legitimate reasons. She insisted that that all visits were for purposes to do with the tenancy, and they never entered the tenancy without getting permission first. She felt she had been mistreated by the tenant and asserted that the tenant’s behaviour became increasingly erratic during her stay. The landlord found the tenant aggressive and intimidating. She had suffered stress as a result of the tenant’s actions and behaviour. She had also received a number of complaints from the neighbours due to the tenant’s behaviour and rely on support letter from the neighbours.
The tenant carries the burden of proof to establish that the landlord breached section 38 RTA by failing to respect her right to quiet enjoyment and privacy. While the tenant has made serious allegations regarding the landlord and her agent’s conduct, she has failed to provide any independent evidence to support her claims. This includes the absence of other third-party documentation that might substantiate the incidents described.
The landlord has consistently denied all allegations, and in the absence of corroborating evidence from the tenant, the Tribunal is unable to determine on the balance of probabilities that the landlord (or any of the landlord’s agents) breached the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment as required by section 38 RTA.
I find that there is insufficient evidence to support the tenant’s claim that the landlord breached section 38 RTA. The hurdle for exemplary damages in situations such as this are high, and I do not find it proven in this matter Therefore, this aspect of the tenant’s application is dismissed. Filing fee
As the landlord has mostly succeeded with their claim and mostly defended the tenant’s claim, I must order the other party to reimburse the filing fee. Suppression orders
Under section 95A(1) RTA, the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been essentially mostly successful with their application and mostly successful with defending the tenant’s application, I order suppression of their name, including the [landlord’s support person] name and identifying details.
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in her application. In the absence of any sufficient grounds, the tenant is not entitled to a suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4746012 — Rent arrears

Tenancy Tribunal case 4746012 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations?

Did the landlord lodge the bond within the required timeframe?

Did the landlord breach their obligation to repair and maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations?

Did the landlord lodge the bond within the required timeframe?

Did the landlord breach their obligation to repair and maintain the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions