What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4761007 about?

The tribunal order states: Don Varghese must pay [The landlord/s] $3,847.94 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4761007?

Cleaning: $780.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $336.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; 2 X Holes In 2 X Bedroom Doors: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Electrical Socket In Lounge: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Gas Heater Cover: $437.00 awarded to landlord; Hole In The Lounge Wall: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Painting The Kitchen Shelves: $104.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $402.50 awarded to landlord; To The Garage Door Opening Mechanism: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $115.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4761007?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4761007?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10079691-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4761007 about?

The tribunal order states: Don Varghese must pay [The landlord/s] $3,847.94 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4761007?

Cleaning: $780.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $336.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; 2 X Holes In 2 X Bedroom Doors: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Electrical Socket In Lounge: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Gas Heater Cover: $437.00 awarded to landlord; Hole In The Lounge Wall: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Painting The Kitchen Shelves: $104.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $402.50 awarded to landlord; To The Garage Door Opening Mechanism: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $115.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4761007?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4761007?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10079691-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4761007 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4761007 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4761007 — net $3,847.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and garden work and section tidy	$336.00	Lawns and garden work and section tidy
Cleaning	$780.00	Cleaning
Repairs: hole in the lounge wall	$200.00	Repairs: hole in the lounge wall
Repairs: electrical socket in lounge	$138.00	Repairs: electrical socket in lounge
Repairs: gas heater cover	$437.00	Repairs: gas heater cover
Repairs: 2 x holes in 2 x bedroom doors	$460.00	Repairs: 2 x holes in 2 x bedroom doors
Lock/key replacement: - estimate for three locks	$150.00	Lock/key replacement: - estimate for three locks
Repairs: to the garage door opening mechanism	$575.00	Repairs: to the garage door opening mechanism
Repairs: water drain damage	$115.00	Repairs: water drain damage
Repairs: patio damage	$402.50	Repairs: patio damage
Repairs: painting the kitchen shelves	$104.00	Repairs: painting the kitchen shelves
Repairs: painting the garage door after repairs	$130.00	Repairs: painting the garage door after repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,847.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,847.94

Claims and awards for application 4761007 — net $3,847.94 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Lawns and garden work and section tidy

Amount: $336.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and garden work and section tidy

Cleaning

Amount: $780.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Repairs: hole in the lounge wall

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: hole in the lounge wall

Repairs: electrical socket in lounge

Amount: $138.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: electrical socket in lounge

Repairs: gas heater cover

Amount: $437.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: gas heater cover

Dismissed claims

Lost Rent — Other orders

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Lost Rent

Order

Don Varghese must pay [The landlord/s] $3,847.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other clams are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Orders are made against the tenant named on the tenancy agreement.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee, and loss of rental income following the end of the tenancy.
I note the District Court decision of Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, which decided that: ... [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.

How much is owed for rent?

There is a claim for rent arrears and rent in lieu of notice. The parties had a Tribunal hearing in November 2023. The Adjudicator found that the tenant owed 28 days of rent in lieu of notice. The bond was refunded, and the tenant provided proof at today’s hearing that he paid the filing fee in December.
I find I cannot make another order about rent arrears and rent in lieu of notice today. There is a rule of law which says I cannot reconsider claims which have already been decided because of the doctrine of res judicata. The principle of res judicata has been defined by Spencer, Bower, Turner & Handly, in Res Judicata (3rd ed) 1996, Butterworths, paragraph 1v where it states: In English law a res judicata is a decision pronounced by judicial tribunal having jurisdiction over the case and the parties which disposes once and for all of all the matters decided, so that except on appeal, they cannot afterwards be relitigated between the same parties or their privies.
The end of the tenancy and the rent owed have already been considered by the Tribunal. If the landlord thought that decision was wrong then they should have appealed. They cannot bring a second claim for arrears rent in lieu of notice.

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

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 (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The landlord provided me with good photos. I find the tenant did not leave the house or the garden reasonably clean and tidy. I have not reduced the number of hours claimed by the landlord. I have reduced the hourly rate for the landlord’s labour. The landlords submitted that it was very unfair that I reduced their hourly rate. I considered the living wage after the hearing and have allowed $26 an hour for their labour. I note the work did not require any level of skill, and that cleaning companies may have a higher hourly rate but they are extremely efficient.
The landlord has claimed the cost for replacing an office chair, a dining table and chairs, a lounge cabinet, parts for the bookshelves, and for curtain accessories. This is because these items were either broken or missing at the end of the tenancy.
I can order compensation if the landlord proves they have suffered a loss. The expected life for furniture provided in the IR265 2020 table is 10 years. I find there was no loss here because all these chattels were more than 10 years old. This claim is dismissed.
The landlord has claimed the cost of replacement keys. The tenant said he returned some of the keys. I am not persuaded by the tenant’s evidence that all the keys were retuned. The landlord’s invoice does not sperate out the cost of replacing locks and keys. Rather than dismiss the claim I have estimated $150 for the work.

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.
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 virtual certainty.
In Tekoa Trust v Amanda Stewart [2016] NZDC 25578, the tenant’s dog caused damage by urinating on the carpet on multiple occasions. The Court noted that that the tenant had allowed the dog inside in breach of a specific term of the agreement. Although that breach did not itself cause the loss, the Court went on to say: However, after a dog had urinated on the carpet once or possibly twice, continuing to allow the dog to enter the property on numerous occasions, which would have been required to damage the carpet to the extent shown, was a deliberate intentional act by the tenant.
The Court approved the following definition of intentional damage: Conduct will be intentional when it is deliberate, and not accidental, and the [resulting damage] ...will be intentional if the defendant meant to cause it or (probably) knew that it was virtually certain to result.
A similar situation was considered by the High Court in Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. In that case, two dogs that were permitted to be on the premises extensively stained the carpets. The High Court held that, just because the landlord allowed dogs to be on the premises, did not mean he assumed all risk of damage. The landlord was entitled to rely on the tenants’ assurance that the dogs were house-trained. At most he had accepted there would be greater wear and tear at the property because of the dogs.
The Court found that by allowing the dogs to remain inside, where it was certain they would continue to “perform natural bodily functions”, the tenants had intentionally caused the ensuing damage to the carpet.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear: • Hole in a wall • Broken electrical socket • Broken gas heater • Two holes in bedroom doors • Broken garage door mechanism and garage door • Broken drain pipe • Broken patio cover • Stained and damaged kitchen shelves.
The landlord provided me with a property condition report from the start of the tenancy, good photos of the damage, and an invoice. The tenant submitted that he was either not aware of the damage, or that it was caused by his child during the tenancy. I am not persuaded by the tenant’s submission. It seems most likely to me that the tenant allowed the child to continue behaving in a way that meant damage was a virtual certainty. The landlord has proved the claims. The amounts claimed are proved.
The claim for repairs to the MDF step in the laundry is not allowed. It seems most likely to me the damage was the result of fair wear and tear. The claim for damage to the side of the front door is not allowed because the door still functions, and I am not persuaded there was any loss. The claim for the kitchen cabinet repairs is not allowed because it seems most likely to me the repairs were needed because of fair wear and tear. The claim for replacing the trellis on top of the fence is not allowed because I agree with the tenant that the trellis was old and worn. The claim for the replacement oven is not allowed because ovens are expected to last eight years in a rental property and the oven was older than this. These claims are all dismissed. Should the tenant pay for new curtains, new net curtains, new flooring and repainting the house?
The landlord provided good photos showing the damage to the curtains and carpets. I was also provided with some photos showing marks on walls and torn wallpaper. The amount claimed was around $30,000. Before I can allow compensation for a loss I must take betterment and depreciation into account. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached his obligations and should not be better or worse off.
In calculating depreciation, I have taken the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan into account. I note this tenancy started in 2018. The landlord does not know when the nets, the flooring, and the wallpaper were installed. The landlord said they bought new curtains during the tenancy but they did not bring proof of purchase to the hearing. The IR265 gives the useful life of curtains, carpets, and lino as eight years. The useful life of net curtains will be even less. It seems most likely to me that the tenant would be paying to improve the tenancy premises if I made an order for compensation. These claims are dismissed.
The IR265 does not give a life span for wallpapered walls. I note however that the damage to the wallpaper is from marks that cannot be wiped off and from edges of the wall paper lifting. It seems most likely to me the wallpaper was ready to be replaced at the end of this tenancy because of fair wear and tear. This claim is also dismissed.

Should the tenants pay for loss of rental income?

The landlord has claimed 10 weeks of lost rent because of the extensive repairs it had to carry out after the end of the tenancy. They said this job was made difficult because the tenancy ended in November, and it was difficult to find a contractor willing to take the job before Christmas.
I find I cannot consider the time taken to refloor, repaint or re-curtain into account because this was maintenance work, which is a landlord cost. I accept that there were a number of repairs that the tenant was responsible for, as well as cleaning and garden work. However, it seems likely to me this work could have been competed in a two week period, which would be a reasonable period of time for maintenance, repair, and extra cleaning after a six year tenancy. The claim for lost rent is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenant’s name will be published because there is public interest in his name.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4761007 — net $3,847.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and garden work and section tidy	$336.00	Lawns and garden work and section tidy
Cleaning	$780.00	Cleaning
Repairs: hole in the lounge wall	$200.00	Repairs: hole in the lounge wall
Repairs: electrical socket in lounge	$138.00	Repairs: electrical socket in lounge
Repairs: gas heater cover	$437.00	Repairs: gas heater cover
Repairs: 2 x holes in 2 x bedroom doors	$460.00	Repairs: 2 x holes in 2 x bedroom doors
Lock/key replacement: - estimate for three locks	$150.00	Lock/key replacement: - estimate for three locks
Repairs: to the garage door opening mechanism	$575.00	Repairs: to the garage door opening mechanism
Repairs: water drain damage	$115.00	Repairs: water drain damage
Repairs: patio damage	$402.50	Repairs: patio damage
Repairs: painting the kitchen shelves	$104.00	Repairs: painting the kitchen shelves
Repairs: painting the garage door after repairs	$130.00	Repairs: painting the garage door after repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,847.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,847.94

Claims and awards for application 4761007 — net $3,847.94 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Lawns and garden work and section tidy

Amount: $336.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and garden work and section tidy

Cleaning

Amount: $780.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Repairs: hole in the lounge wall

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: hole in the lounge wall

Repairs: electrical socket in lounge

Amount: $138.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: electrical socket in lounge

Repairs: gas heater cover

Amount: $437.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: gas heater cover

Dismissed claims

Lost Rent — Other orders

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Lost Rent

Order

Don Varghese must pay [The landlord/s] $3,847.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other clams are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Orders are made against the tenant named on the tenancy agreement.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee, and loss of rental income following the end of the tenancy.
I note the District Court decision of Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, which decided that: ... [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.

How much is owed for rent?

There is a claim for rent arrears and rent in lieu of notice. The parties had a Tribunal hearing in November 2023. The Adjudicator found that the tenant owed 28 days of rent in lieu of notice. The bond was refunded, and the tenant provided proof at today’s hearing that he paid the filing fee in December.
I find I cannot make another order about rent arrears and rent in lieu of notice today. There is a rule of law which says I cannot reconsider claims which have already been decided because of the doctrine of res judicata. The principle of res judicata has been defined by Spencer, Bower, Turner & Handly, in Res Judicata (3rd ed) 1996, Butterworths, paragraph 1v where it states: In English law a res judicata is a decision pronounced by judicial tribunal having jurisdiction over the case and the parties which disposes once and for all of all the matters decided, so that except on appeal, they cannot afterwards be relitigated between the same parties or their privies.
The end of the tenancy and the rent owed have already been considered by the Tribunal. If the landlord thought that decision was wrong then they should have appealed. They cannot bring a second claim for arrears rent in lieu of notice.

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

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 (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The landlord provided me with good photos. I find the tenant did not leave the house or the garden reasonably clean and tidy. I have not reduced the number of hours claimed by the landlord. I have reduced the hourly rate for the landlord’s labour. The landlords submitted that it was very unfair that I reduced their hourly rate. I considered the living wage after the hearing and have allowed $26 an hour for their labour. I note the work did not require any level of skill, and that cleaning companies may have a higher hourly rate but they are extremely efficient.
The landlord has claimed the cost for replacing an office chair, a dining table and chairs, a lounge cabinet, parts for the bookshelves, and for curtain accessories. This is because these items were either broken or missing at the end of the tenancy.
I can order compensation if the landlord proves they have suffered a loss. The expected life for furniture provided in the IR265 2020 table is 10 years. I find there was no loss here because all these chattels were more than 10 years old. This claim is dismissed.
The landlord has claimed the cost of replacement keys. The tenant said he returned some of the keys. I am not persuaded by the tenant’s evidence that all the keys were retuned. The landlord’s invoice does not sperate out the cost of replacing locks and keys. Rather than dismiss the claim I have estimated $150 for the work.

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.
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 virtual certainty.
In Tekoa Trust v Amanda Stewart [2016] NZDC 25578, the tenant’s dog caused damage by urinating on the carpet on multiple occasions. The Court noted that that the tenant had allowed the dog inside in breach of a specific term of the agreement. Although that breach did not itself cause the loss, the Court went on to say: However, after a dog had urinated on the carpet once or possibly twice, continuing to allow the dog to enter the property on numerous occasions, which would have been required to damage the carpet to the extent shown, was a deliberate intentional act by the tenant.
The Court approved the following definition of intentional damage: Conduct will be intentional when it is deliberate, and not accidental, and the [resulting damage] ...will be intentional if the defendant meant to cause it or (probably) knew that it was virtually certain to result.
A similar situation was considered by the High Court in Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. In that case, two dogs that were permitted to be on the premises extensively stained the carpets. The High Court held that, just because the landlord allowed dogs to be on the premises, did not mean he assumed all risk of damage. The landlord was entitled to rely on the tenants’ assurance that the dogs were house-trained. At most he had accepted there would be greater wear and tear at the property because of the dogs.
The Court found that by allowing the dogs to remain inside, where it was certain they would continue to “perform natural bodily functions”, the tenants had intentionally caused the ensuing damage to the carpet.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear: • Hole in a wall • Broken electrical socket • Broken gas heater • Two holes in bedroom doors • Broken garage door mechanism and garage door • Broken drain pipe • Broken patio cover • Stained and damaged kitchen shelves.
The landlord provided me with a property condition report from the start of the tenancy, good photos of the damage, and an invoice. The tenant submitted that he was either not aware of the damage, or that it was caused by his child during the tenancy. I am not persuaded by the tenant’s submission. It seems most likely to me that the tenant allowed the child to continue behaving in a way that meant damage was a virtual certainty. The landlord has proved the claims. The amounts claimed are proved.
The claim for repairs to the MDF step in the laundry is not allowed. It seems most likely to me the damage was the result of fair wear and tear. The claim for damage to the side of the front door is not allowed because the door still functions, and I am not persuaded there was any loss. The claim for the kitchen cabinet repairs is not allowed because it seems most likely to me the repairs were needed because of fair wear and tear. The claim for replacing the trellis on top of the fence is not allowed because I agree with the tenant that the trellis was old and worn. The claim for the replacement oven is not allowed because ovens are expected to last eight years in a rental property and the oven was older than this. These claims are all dismissed. Should the tenant pay for new curtains, new net curtains, new flooring and repainting the house?
The landlord provided good photos showing the damage to the curtains and carpets. I was also provided with some photos showing marks on walls and torn wallpaper. The amount claimed was around $30,000. Before I can allow compensation for a loss I must take betterment and depreciation into account. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached his obligations and should not be better or worse off.
In calculating depreciation, I have taken the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan into account. I note this tenancy started in 2018. The landlord does not know when the nets, the flooring, and the wallpaper were installed. The landlord said they bought new curtains during the tenancy but they did not bring proof of purchase to the hearing. The IR265 gives the useful life of curtains, carpets, and lino as eight years. The useful life of net curtains will be even less. It seems most likely to me that the tenant would be paying to improve the tenancy premises if I made an order for compensation. These claims are dismissed.
The IR265 does not give a life span for wallpapered walls. I note however that the damage to the wallpaper is from marks that cannot be wiped off and from edges of the wall paper lifting. It seems most likely to me the wallpaper was ready to be replaced at the end of this tenancy because of fair wear and tear. This claim is also dismissed.

Should the tenants pay for loss of rental income?

The landlord has claimed 10 weeks of lost rent because of the extensive repairs it had to carry out after the end of the tenancy. They said this job was made difficult because the tenancy ended in November, and it was difficult to find a contractor willing to take the job before Christmas.
I find I cannot consider the time taken to refloor, repaint or re-curtain into account because this was maintenance work, which is a landlord cost. I accept that there were a number of repairs that the tenant was responsible for, as well as cleaning and garden work. However, it seems likely to me this work could have been competed in a two week period, which would be a reasonable period of time for maintenance, repair, and extra cleaning after a six year tenancy. The claim for lost rent is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenant’s name will be published because there is public interest in his name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4761007 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4761007 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenants pay for loss of rental income?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenants pay for loss of rental income?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions