What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4768457 about?

The tribunal order states: A rehearing is granted to amend the name of the applicant landlord only.

How much money was awarded in case 4768457?

Cleaning: $11,122.99 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $249.46 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application [Redacted: $1,810.59 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,194.41 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,800.00 awarded to landlord; Cat Door: $105.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Cistern: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $144.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4768457?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4768457?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9932219-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4768457 about?

The tribunal order states: A rehearing is granted to amend the name of the applicant landlord only.

How much money was awarded in case 4768457?

Cleaning: $11,122.99 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $249.46 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application [Redacted: $1,810.59 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,194.41 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,800.00 awarded to landlord; Cat Door: $105.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Cistern: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $144.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4768457?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4768457?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9932219-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4768457 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4768457. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application [redacted	$1,810.59	Previous order application [redacted
Meth testing/Cleaning	$11,122.99	Meth testing/Cleaning
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$144.63	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$249.46	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement	$1,194.41	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: 4 x insurance excess at each	$2,800.00	Repairs: 4 x insurance excess at each
Repairs: Cat door	$105.00	Repairs: Cat door
Repairs: Toilet Cistern	$500.00	Repairs: Toilet Cistern
Loss of Rent	$1,000.00	Loss of Rent
Exemplary Damages - Methamphetamine	$600.00	Exemplary Damages - Methamphetamine
Filing Fee	$20.44	Filing Fee

Order

A rehearing is granted to amend the name of the applicant landlord only.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Carrie Sturgess must pay [The landlord/s] $19,747.52 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Previous order application [redacted]$1,810.59 Meth testing/Cleaning$11,122.99 Cleaning$200.00 Rubbish removal$144.63 Lawns and Garden work$249.46 Lock/key replacement$1,194.41 Repairs: 4 x insurance excess at $700 each$2,800.00 Repairs: Cat door$105.00 Repairs: Toilet Cistern$500.00 Loss of Rent$1,000.00 Exemplary Damages - Methamphetamine$600.00 Filing Fee$20.44 Total award$19,747.52
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on [redacted].
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative/s] attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
On [redacted] the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.

Did the tenant comply with their 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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The tenant did not return the keys or garage door remotes.
The landlord provided limited photographs of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. I have awarded $200 for cleaning, rather than the $324.01 claimed as the photographs did not show the entire premises. The landlord has the onus of proving its claims and providing the evidence necessary to do so.
The amounts claimed and ordered for lawn/garden work, rubbish removal and lock & key replacement are proved.
The landlord claimed some decorative fish were removed from the bathroom wall at the end of the tenancy. There was no photograph of the bathroom wall at the end of the tenancy, and the landlord’s representative had not visited the property so could not provide corroborative oral evidence. The claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is 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.
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 landlord claimed that a range of damage occurred during the tenancy but provided limited evidence in relation to the alleged damage and actual repair costs incurred. I find that it is more likely than not that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: garage wall damage, damage to walls and floors in living room, hallway wall damage, bedroom 1 wall and floor damage, toilet cistern was broken and cat door removed. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I have awarded the 4 excesses claimed for garage wall damage, damage to walls and floors in living room, hallway wall damage, bedroom 1 wall and floor damage. Estimates were provided for the cat door and toilet repair. As those costs have not been incurred, I have balanced the estimates provided with an assessment of the loss in value to the landlord in having damaged items.
The landlord did not establish other claims for damage. There was evidence that the garage floor was stained at the start of the tenancy and some level of staining is normal wear and tear to a concrete garage floor. Damaged gates, fence palings and decking appeared to be landlord maintenance issues. There was no evidence in relation to damage claimed for bedroom 2. The methamphetamine claims are considered separately below. Except as specifically awarded, the landlord’s claims for damage are dismissed. Methamphetamine
The landlord claims that the premises were damaged by methamphetamine contamination during the tenancy. As with the other claims, the landlord has the onus of establishing a breach of the tenant’s obligations and the amount of any compensation or exemplary damages to be awarded.
The landlord has provided laboratory test results and reports which show: a. The premises tested negative for methamphetamine on 24 July 2019; at the start of this tenancy. b. The premises were tested again at the end of the tenancy; on 30 October 2023. Ten samples were taken. The theoretical maximum methamphetamine reading from a composite result of the 10 samples was 109 micrograms (mcg). c. Those samples were separated to provided individual results as follows: Bed 1 – 0.8 mcg, kitchen rangehood – 5.58 mcg, bathroom fan 10.7 mcg, bed 2 - 8.12 mcg, bed 3 – 0.07 mcg, bed 4 – 2.24 mcg, hallway – 5.91 mcg, living room – 2.00 mcg, sleepout 80.30 mcg, garage – 1.22 mcg.
The landlord claimed that the readings establish that methamphetamine was used at the premises during the tenancy.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. In the absence of any other explanation or evidence, I am led to the conclusion that is more likely than not that methamphetamine was used at the premises, during the tenancy by the tenant or a person who was at the property with the tenant’s permission. I must now consider whether there has been damage as result of the methamphetamine use.
In May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, released a report “Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards.” (“The Gluckman report”)
The Gluckman report noted the lack of data on the effect of living in a house previously used for smoking methamphetamine (“third-hand” exposure). It stated that, where there is no evidence of manufacturing methamphetamine, exposure to levels below 15mcg/100 cm2 would be highly unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects.
In Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 the District Court described the Gluckman report as representing “the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings” and endorsed the Tenancy Tribunal’s decision to conclude that there was no damage to premises where methamphetamine levels were below 15mcg/100cm2. That approach has been endorsed in subsequent decisions of the District Court. See Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 and Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210; Barfoot and Thomson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319.
The Gluckman report recommended retaining a remediation level of
5mcg/100cm2 where there is evidence of manufacture. The report also stated (pg 6) that where methamphetamine residue is detected at levels greater than 30mcg/100cm2 this is thought to be indicative of manufacturing activity.
The high methamphetamine reading in the sleepout (80.3 mcg) satisfies me that the sleepout was damaged ad required decontamination. The sleepout was attached to the garage but is a discrete building to the main dwelling. For that reason, the landlord has only established that the sleepout was damaged by methamphetamine contamination. The readings from the main dwelling were all less than 15mcg.
The landlord must establish the costs associated with decontamination of the damaged area. At the hearing the landlord referred to an invoice for decontamination. The invoice referred to the report supplied and was for “decontamination of the rooms that are above 1.5mg”. On its face, that invoice relates to both the main dwelling and the sleep out.
I allowed a brief adjournment for the landlord’s representative to clarify the extent of the decontamination work. I am satisfied that the compensation claimed relates only to decontamination of the sleep out. The amount awarded includes the testing costs, decontamination and subsequent painting repairs and replacement carpet. I awarded the landlord compensation for the comprehensive methamphetamine test results because these were necessary to determine the individual locations of contamination.
The landlord also claimed loss of rent for 9 weeks at $250 per week, because the sleepout could not be tenanted until it was decontaminated. The landlord provided evidence of a tenant wanting to move in to the sleepout, but no certainty around a move in date; the proposed tenant said that they were “flexible”. That proposed tenant did ultimately rent the sleepout at $250 per week, and I accept that they would have moved in slightly earlier, if the sleepout was available. I award the landlord 4 weeks loss of rent.
The landlord also claimed exemplary damages in relation to the methamphetamine use. A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is unlawful to use methamphetamine. It is also a deliberate or intentional act. Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Having regard to those factors, I award $600 in exemplary damages for this breach.
As the landlord was substantially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the filing fee and granted the landlord’s request for suppression of its details. Rehearing
The Tribunal made Orders dated 8 February 2024. The Orders and reasons are identical to those set out above.
On 14 February 2024, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the basis that it had identified the incorrect property owner in its application, with the result that the order was made in favour of the wrong person. The application named the original property, rather than the current one. This changed during the tenancy and the landlord gave evidence that the tenant was advised of the change.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.
Usually, the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing, or they were not able to properly present their case. In this instance there was no error with the Tribunal process.
However, an award has been made in favour of the wrong person. That needs to be corrected. I have allowed the rehearing and re-issued a decision naming the correct the party as landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4768457. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application [redacted	$1,810.59	Previous order application [redacted
Meth testing/Cleaning	$11,122.99	Meth testing/Cleaning
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$144.63	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$249.46	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement	$1,194.41	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: 4 x insurance excess at each	$2,800.00	Repairs: 4 x insurance excess at each
Repairs: Cat door	$105.00	Repairs: Cat door
Repairs: Toilet Cistern	$500.00	Repairs: Toilet Cistern
Loss of Rent	$1,000.00	Loss of Rent
Exemplary Damages - Methamphetamine	$600.00	Exemplary Damages - Methamphetamine
Filing Fee	$20.44	Filing Fee

Order

A rehearing is granted to amend the name of the applicant landlord only.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Carrie Sturgess must pay [The landlord/s] $19,747.52 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Previous order application [redacted]$1,810.59 Meth testing/Cleaning$11,122.99 Cleaning$200.00 Rubbish removal$144.63 Lawns and Garden work$249.46 Lock/key replacement$1,194.41 Repairs: 4 x insurance excess at $700 each$2,800.00 Repairs: Cat door$105.00 Repairs: Toilet Cistern$500.00 Loss of Rent$1,000.00 Exemplary Damages - Methamphetamine$600.00 Filing Fee$20.44 Total award$19,747.52
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on [redacted].
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative/s] attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
On [redacted] the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.

Did the tenant comply with their 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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The tenant did not return the keys or garage door remotes.
The landlord provided limited photographs of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. I have awarded $200 for cleaning, rather than the $324.01 claimed as the photographs did not show the entire premises. The landlord has the onus of proving its claims and providing the evidence necessary to do so.
The amounts claimed and ordered for lawn/garden work, rubbish removal and lock & key replacement are proved.
The landlord claimed some decorative fish were removed from the bathroom wall at the end of the tenancy. There was no photograph of the bathroom wall at the end of the tenancy, and the landlord’s representative had not visited the property so could not provide corroborative oral evidence. The claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is 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.
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 landlord claimed that a range of damage occurred during the tenancy but provided limited evidence in relation to the alleged damage and actual repair costs incurred. I find that it is more likely than not that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: garage wall damage, damage to walls and floors in living room, hallway wall damage, bedroom 1 wall and floor damage, toilet cistern was broken and cat door removed. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I have awarded the 4 excesses claimed for garage wall damage, damage to walls and floors in living room, hallway wall damage, bedroom 1 wall and floor damage. Estimates were provided for the cat door and toilet repair. As those costs have not been incurred, I have balanced the estimates provided with an assessment of the loss in value to the landlord in having damaged items.
The landlord did not establish other claims for damage. There was evidence that the garage floor was stained at the start of the tenancy and some level of staining is normal wear and tear to a concrete garage floor. Damaged gates, fence palings and decking appeared to be landlord maintenance issues. There was no evidence in relation to damage claimed for bedroom 2. The methamphetamine claims are considered separately below. Except as specifically awarded, the landlord’s claims for damage are dismissed. Methamphetamine
The landlord claims that the premises were damaged by methamphetamine contamination during the tenancy. As with the other claims, the landlord has the onus of establishing a breach of the tenant’s obligations and the amount of any compensation or exemplary damages to be awarded.
The landlord has provided laboratory test results and reports which show: a. The premises tested negative for methamphetamine on 24 July 2019; at the start of this tenancy. b. The premises were tested again at the end of the tenancy; on 30 October 2023. Ten samples were taken. The theoretical maximum methamphetamine reading from a composite result of the 10 samples was 109 micrograms (mcg). c. Those samples were separated to provided individual results as follows: Bed 1 – 0.8 mcg, kitchen rangehood – 5.58 mcg, bathroom fan 10.7 mcg, bed 2 - 8.12 mcg, bed 3 – 0.07 mcg, bed 4 – 2.24 mcg, hallway – 5.91 mcg, living room – 2.00 mcg, sleepout 80.30 mcg, garage – 1.22 mcg.
The landlord claimed that the readings establish that methamphetamine was used at the premises during the tenancy.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. In the absence of any other explanation or evidence, I am led to the conclusion that is more likely than not that methamphetamine was used at the premises, during the tenancy by the tenant or a person who was at the property with the tenant’s permission. I must now consider whether there has been damage as result of the methamphetamine use.
In May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, released a report “Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards.” (“The Gluckman report”)
The Gluckman report noted the lack of data on the effect of living in a house previously used for smoking methamphetamine (“third-hand” exposure). It stated that, where there is no evidence of manufacturing methamphetamine, exposure to levels below 15mcg/100 cm2 would be highly unlikely to give rise to any adverse effects.
In Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 the District Court described the Gluckman report as representing “the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings” and endorsed the Tenancy Tribunal’s decision to conclude that there was no damage to premises where methamphetamine levels were below 15mcg/100cm2. That approach has been endorsed in subsequent decisions of the District Court. See Acme Realty Ltd v Alexander James Hogg, Tuitui Grace Polotu, Leigh Sharyn Coughlin [2021] NZDC 3231 and Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak [2021] NZDC 15210; Barfoot and Thomson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319.
The Gluckman report recommended retaining a remediation level of
5mcg/100cm2 where there is evidence of manufacture. The report also stated (pg 6) that where methamphetamine residue is detected at levels greater than 30mcg/100cm2 this is thought to be indicative of manufacturing activity.
The high methamphetamine reading in the sleepout (80.3 mcg) satisfies me that the sleepout was damaged ad required decontamination. The sleepout was attached to the garage but is a discrete building to the main dwelling. For that reason, the landlord has only established that the sleepout was damaged by methamphetamine contamination. The readings from the main dwelling were all less than 15mcg.
The landlord must establish the costs associated with decontamination of the damaged area. At the hearing the landlord referred to an invoice for decontamination. The invoice referred to the report supplied and was for “decontamination of the rooms that are above 1.5mg”. On its face, that invoice relates to both the main dwelling and the sleep out.
I allowed a brief adjournment for the landlord’s representative to clarify the extent of the decontamination work. I am satisfied that the compensation claimed relates only to decontamination of the sleep out. The amount awarded includes the testing costs, decontamination and subsequent painting repairs and replacement carpet. I awarded the landlord compensation for the comprehensive methamphetamine test results because these were necessary to determine the individual locations of contamination.
The landlord also claimed loss of rent for 9 weeks at $250 per week, because the sleepout could not be tenanted until it was decontaminated. The landlord provided evidence of a tenant wanting to move in to the sleepout, but no certainty around a move in date; the proposed tenant said that they were “flexible”. That proposed tenant did ultimately rent the sleepout at $250 per week, and I accept that they would have moved in slightly earlier, if the sleepout was available. I award the landlord 4 weeks loss of rent.
The landlord also claimed exemplary damages in relation to the methamphetamine use. A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is unlawful to use methamphetamine. It is also a deliberate or intentional act. Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Having regard to those factors, I award $600 in exemplary damages for this breach.
As the landlord was substantially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the filing fee and granted the landlord’s request for suppression of its details. Rehearing
The Tribunal made Orders dated 8 February 2024. The Orders and reasons are identical to those set out above.
On 14 February 2024, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the basis that it had identified the incorrect property owner in its application, with the result that the order was made in favour of the wrong person. The application named the original property, rather than the current one. This changed during the tenancy and the landlord gave evidence that the tenant was advised of the change.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.
Usually, the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing, or they were not able to properly present their case. In this instance there was no error with the Tribunal process.
However, an award has been made in favour of the wrong person. That needs to be corrected. I have allowed the rehearing and re-issued a decision naming the correct the party as landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4768457 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4768457 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions