What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4856243?

The tribunal order states: Mystery Hine Rangi Murphy must pay Ihome Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4856243?

Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: 10 litres of water bot…: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Emotional Stress: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,499.14 awarded to landlord; Glass: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Walls: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4856243?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4856243?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10542345-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4856243?

The tribunal order states: Mystery Hine Rangi Murphy must pay Ihome Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4856243?

Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: 10 litres of water bot…: $50.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Emotional Stress: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,499.14 awarded to landlord; Glass: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Walls: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4856243?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4856243?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10542345-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 70A Pah Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4856243 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4856243 — net $3,658.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 10 February 2024	$2,499.14		Rent arrears to 10 February 2024
Lock/key replacement: Front door lock	$250.00		Lock/key replacement: Front door lock
Cleaning	$600.00		Cleaning
Repairs: Glass	$149.50		Repairs: Glass
Repairs: Walls	$460.00		Repairs: Walls
Rubbish removal	$250.00		Rubbish removal
Compensation: 10 litres of water bottles		$50.00	10 litres of water bottles
Compensation: Emotional stress		$500.00	Emotional stress
Total award	$4,208.64	$550.00
Net award	$3,658.64
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,658.64

Order

Mystery Hine Rangi Murphy must pay Ihome Property Management Limited $3,658.64 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Ms Dong attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.
Ms Murphy, the tenant, attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 10 February 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy on 10 February 2024. Standard of proof.
The applicant must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities; i.e., more probable than not.
In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while ‘balance of probabilities’ is a constant standard: It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it”.
This approach was confirmed by the majority of the Supreme Court in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, where the Court stated: [102] ... In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.
Section 97(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: ... the Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law
It follows that, although the Tribunal is not bound by the usual rules of evidence when admitting evidence, where the allegation is serious, it is likely to require stronger evidence before finding the claim proved on the balance of probabilities.

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 rubbish that belonged to her.
The tenant did not contest that she failed to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. She acknowledged Ms. Dong’s request for $600 to cover cleaning expenses. Rubbish/furniture removal
The tenant, however, disputed the ownership of the rubbish/further. She submitted: a. She accepts responsibility for removing the rubbish from the side of the fence up to the back gate, but not the furniture in the garage. b. The furniture, such as mattresses, a fridge, tables, chairs, and other items, were not hers. c. The furniture belonged to the previous upstairs tenants who were evicted. When they were evicted, they left their furniture in the shared garage as they could not hire a skip bin. d. Two months after the upstairs tenants were evicted, they came back and temporarily lived with her downstairs. They brought back only two mattresses with them, but they left the rest of the furniture from their previous eviction in the garage. e. She had received 7 notices over 3 years to remove rubbish that was not hers from her front door neighbour's property and upstairs. f. When the rubbish removal people came, she told them she would remove her rubbish, but not the upstairs tenants' furniture left in the garage.
Ms Dong for the landlord submitted: a. She disputed the tenant’s claim that the furniture did not belong to her. Ms. Dong said "... definitely it belongs to them (Ms. Murphy and her family)." b. When she did the final inspection before the tenant moved out, the tenant had arranged for a skip bin that was already full. c. The tenant told her at the time that they would move away the remaining rubbish/furniture next week, and she arranged for another bin to come after that. d. The tenant did not mention at that time that some of the rubbish/furniture did not belong to her. e. She could provide photos from 4 July 2023 showing the area empty and tidy after they had arranged for a handyman to clean it up previously. f. The rubbish/furniture accumulated again after 4 July 2023 and, therefore, must have belonged to the tenant as the current tenant. My view
The tenant acknowledged that some of the smaller items, such as the tyre, lawn mower grass catcher, etc., belonged to her.
However, for the larger furniture items like the mattresses, fridge, tables, coffee tables etc. the tenant did not accept were hers.
I have no evidence to determine how those larger furniture items got there after 3 July 2023.
Ms Dong did not submit evidence, such as a pre-inspection report or an ongoing inspection report, to prove the property was vacant of those items when the tenant moved in and during the tenancy or identify the owners of the rubbish/furniture.
I have my suspicion that the tenant may be responsible for the rubbish and larger furniture. However, suspicion is suspicion, and it takes this issue no further than that.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the majority of the rubbish/furniture belonged to the tenant.
Ms Dong sought compensation for $800 for rubbish/furniture removal. As the tenant accepted a small portion of the removal cost, $250 is reasonable to cover the removal of the portion of rubbish that belonged to the tenant.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Glass b. Wall
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The tenant accepted her responsibility for the cost of glass and wall repairs. The amounts ordered are proved. The tenant’s claims against the landlord.
The tenant filed a counterclaim against the landlord as follows: a. The tenant did not have running water due to water leaking issues. The tenant had to purchase 10 litres of water bottles. The cost is $50. b. Ms Dong terminated the tenancy under section 51(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act. The termination notice, dated 8 November 2023, stated, “The owner is putting the property on the market within 90 days after the termination date.” (italic original). However, the landlord did not put the property on the market. Instead, it was relet on Trademe for a higher rent price. The tenant claims emotional stress for “up to $7,000” because she is still in and out of emergency housing. Compensation for 10 litres of water bottles.
Ms Dong did not dispute the tenant’s claim for $50.
Accordingly, this compensation is granted by consent. Did the landlord terminate the tenancy for the purposes of sale within 90 days after giving the tenant termination notice? Ms Dong’s submissions
Ms Dong stated that the owner (her client) wanted to sell the property and put it on the market, which is why they gave the 90-day notice to the tenant.
She said the owner told her he wanted to sell because the mortgage payments had increased and he had no choice but to sell.
After the tenant moved out, the owner did some tidying/staging of the property to prepare for listing, but then a family member passed away overseas, so the owner had to go to Korea for three months.
When the owner returned, he spoke to agents who advised the $2.2 million asking price was too high, so the owner decided not to sell for the time being. The tenant’s submissions.
She received the 90-day termination notice stating the owner was putting the property on the market to sell. By May 2024 (which would have been after the 90 days elapsed); the landlord had instead put the property back up for rental at a higher price than what she was previously paying.
The termination notice caused her and her kids a lot of stress. From February 2024 onwards, they had been moving in and out of emergency housing, trying to find a new rental property, under the impression that the house was being sold per the notice.
She has heart problems, and the situation of being given notice to vacate for the stated purpose of sale but then seeing the property re-listed for rent at a higher price caused her significant stress.
She wanted to claim a specific amount for the stress caused; she stated, "Up to $7,000."
In summary, the tenant challenged the legitimacy of the termination notice by pointing out that instead of being sold after she vacated, the property was simply re-listed for rent at a higher price, causing her family upheaval and stress from having to find emergency accommodation under the impression they had to vacate for the property's sale. My view
When I pressed for evidence, such as listing paperwork or the engagement of an agent, Ms. Dong did not have any documentation to show.
There was no evidence before me to substantiate that the owner actually took steps to list the property for sale with a real estate agent within that 90-day period after the tenant vacated on 10 February 2024.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that on 8 November 2023, the landlord issued a termination notice under s51(2)(a) with the purposes of sale or other disposition. Compensation for emotional stress.
There is no doubt leaving her home in the circumstances she was in was stressful.
The claim she made was for compensation for “up to $7,000”. There is no evidence or submission of how she arrived at “up to $7,000”.
I have acknowledged leaving her home in the circumstances she was in was stressful, and I consider compensation is warranted.
I consider $500 for emotional stress appropriate, taking into account that she has to find a rental property with her children knowing the termination date is 8 February 2024. Other matter
In her application before me, Ms. Dong claimed $345 for the cost of deodorising the premises.
Ms Dong later sought compensation for replacing the carpet because the deodorising did not remove the odour. I declined to consider the carpet replacement claim as it was not part of the original application, and the tenant was not expecting it to be heard today.
My view is that the cost of deodorising should be considered along with the carpet replacement to ensure the tenant does not have to pay for the same issue twice.
Ms Dong may want to include the deodorising cost in a new application to compensate for the carpet replacement. Name suppression
The tenant sought name suppression.
Her name was already published in the Tribunal Order (4635776, 4562389) dated 8 December 2023.
The present disputes involved the same parties but with different issues. While the tenant had partially succeeded in her application, I considered that the circumstances of the current case did not justify granting her name suppression application for the reasons below.: a. The house was not clean and tidy; and b. There were damages to the house.
Accordingly, the tenant’s name suppression application is declined. Filing fee
Both parties have succeeded in their applications.
Accordingly, the cost is to lie where it falls.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4856243 — net $3,658.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 10 February 2024	$2,499.14		Rent arrears to 10 February 2024
Lock/key replacement: Front door lock	$250.00		Lock/key replacement: Front door lock
Cleaning	$600.00		Cleaning
Repairs: Glass	$149.50		Repairs: Glass
Repairs: Walls	$460.00		Repairs: Walls
Rubbish removal	$250.00		Rubbish removal
Compensation: 10 litres of water bottles		$50.00	10 litres of water bottles
Compensation: Emotional stress		$500.00	Emotional stress
Total award	$4,208.64	$550.00
Net award	$3,658.64
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,658.64

Order

Mystery Hine Rangi Murphy must pay Ihome Property Management Limited $3,658.64 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Ms Dong attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.
Ms Murphy, the tenant, attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 10 February 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy on 10 February 2024. Standard of proof.
The applicant must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities; i.e., more probable than not.
In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while ‘balance of probabilities’ is a constant standard: It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it”.
This approach was confirmed by the majority of the Supreme Court in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, where the Court stated: [102] ... In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.
Section 97(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: ... the Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law
It follows that, although the Tribunal is not bound by the usual rules of evidence when admitting evidence, where the allegation is serious, it is likely to require stronger evidence before finding the claim proved on the balance of probabilities.

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 rubbish that belonged to her.
The tenant did not contest that she failed to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. She acknowledged Ms. Dong’s request for $600 to cover cleaning expenses. Rubbish/furniture removal
The tenant, however, disputed the ownership of the rubbish/further. She submitted: a. She accepts responsibility for removing the rubbish from the side of the fence up to the back gate, but not the furniture in the garage. b. The furniture, such as mattresses, a fridge, tables, chairs, and other items, were not hers. c. The furniture belonged to the previous upstairs tenants who were evicted. When they were evicted, they left their furniture in the shared garage as they could not hire a skip bin. d. Two months after the upstairs tenants were evicted, they came back and temporarily lived with her downstairs. They brought back only two mattresses with them, but they left the rest of the furniture from their previous eviction in the garage. e. She had received 7 notices over 3 years to remove rubbish that was not hers from her front door neighbour's property and upstairs. f. When the rubbish removal people came, she told them she would remove her rubbish, but not the upstairs tenants' furniture left in the garage.
Ms Dong for the landlord submitted: a. She disputed the tenant’s claim that the furniture did not belong to her. Ms. Dong said "... definitely it belongs to them (Ms. Murphy and her family)." b. When she did the final inspection before the tenant moved out, the tenant had arranged for a skip bin that was already full. c. The tenant told her at the time that they would move away the remaining rubbish/furniture next week, and she arranged for another bin to come after that. d. The tenant did not mention at that time that some of the rubbish/furniture did not belong to her. e. She could provide photos from 4 July 2023 showing the area empty and tidy after they had arranged for a handyman to clean it up previously. f. The rubbish/furniture accumulated again after 4 July 2023 and, therefore, must have belonged to the tenant as the current tenant. My view
The tenant acknowledged that some of the smaller items, such as the tyre, lawn mower grass catcher, etc., belonged to her.
However, for the larger furniture items like the mattresses, fridge, tables, coffee tables etc. the tenant did not accept were hers.
I have no evidence to determine how those larger furniture items got there after 3 July 2023.
Ms Dong did not submit evidence, such as a pre-inspection report or an ongoing inspection report, to prove the property was vacant of those items when the tenant moved in and during the tenancy or identify the owners of the rubbish/furniture.
I have my suspicion that the tenant may be responsible for the rubbish and larger furniture. However, suspicion is suspicion, and it takes this issue no further than that.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the majority of the rubbish/furniture belonged to the tenant.
Ms Dong sought compensation for $800 for rubbish/furniture removal. As the tenant accepted a small portion of the removal cost, $250 is reasonable to cover the removal of the portion of rubbish that belonged to the tenant.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Glass b. Wall
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The tenant accepted her responsibility for the cost of glass and wall repairs. The amounts ordered are proved. The tenant’s claims against the landlord.
The tenant filed a counterclaim against the landlord as follows: a. The tenant did not have running water due to water leaking issues. The tenant had to purchase 10 litres of water bottles. The cost is $50. b. Ms Dong terminated the tenancy under section 51(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act. The termination notice, dated 8 November 2023, stated, “The owner is putting the property on the market within 90 days after the termination date.” (italic original). However, the landlord did not put the property on the market. Instead, it was relet on Trademe for a higher rent price. The tenant claims emotional stress for “up to $7,000” because she is still in and out of emergency housing. Compensation for 10 litres of water bottles.
Ms Dong did not dispute the tenant’s claim for $50.
Accordingly, this compensation is granted by consent. Did the landlord terminate the tenancy for the purposes of sale within 90 days after giving the tenant termination notice? Ms Dong’s submissions
Ms Dong stated that the owner (her client) wanted to sell the property and put it on the market, which is why they gave the 90-day notice to the tenant.
She said the owner told her he wanted to sell because the mortgage payments had increased and he had no choice but to sell.
After the tenant moved out, the owner did some tidying/staging of the property to prepare for listing, but then a family member passed away overseas, so the owner had to go to Korea for three months.
When the owner returned, he spoke to agents who advised the $2.2 million asking price was too high, so the owner decided not to sell for the time being. The tenant’s submissions.
She received the 90-day termination notice stating the owner was putting the property on the market to sell. By May 2024 (which would have been after the 90 days elapsed); the landlord had instead put the property back up for rental at a higher price than what she was previously paying.
The termination notice caused her and her kids a lot of stress. From February 2024 onwards, they had been moving in and out of emergency housing, trying to find a new rental property, under the impression that the house was being sold per the notice.
She has heart problems, and the situation of being given notice to vacate for the stated purpose of sale but then seeing the property re-listed for rent at a higher price caused her significant stress.
She wanted to claim a specific amount for the stress caused; she stated, "Up to $7,000."
In summary, the tenant challenged the legitimacy of the termination notice by pointing out that instead of being sold after she vacated, the property was simply re-listed for rent at a higher price, causing her family upheaval and stress from having to find emergency accommodation under the impression they had to vacate for the property's sale. My view
When I pressed for evidence, such as listing paperwork or the engagement of an agent, Ms. Dong did not have any documentation to show.
There was no evidence before me to substantiate that the owner actually took steps to list the property for sale with a real estate agent within that 90-day period after the tenant vacated on 10 February 2024.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that on 8 November 2023, the landlord issued a termination notice under s51(2)(a) with the purposes of sale or other disposition. Compensation for emotional stress.
There is no doubt leaving her home in the circumstances she was in was stressful.
The claim she made was for compensation for “up to $7,000”. There is no evidence or submission of how she arrived at “up to $7,000”.
I have acknowledged leaving her home in the circumstances she was in was stressful, and I consider compensation is warranted.
I consider $500 for emotional stress appropriate, taking into account that she has to find a rental property with her children knowing the termination date is 8 February 2024. Other matter
In her application before me, Ms. Dong claimed $345 for the cost of deodorising the premises.
Ms Dong later sought compensation for replacing the carpet because the deodorising did not remove the odour. I declined to consider the carpet replacement claim as it was not part of the original application, and the tenant was not expecting it to be heard today.
My view is that the cost of deodorising should be considered along with the carpet replacement to ensure the tenant does not have to pay for the same issue twice.
Ms Dong may want to include the deodorising cost in a new application to compensate for the carpet replacement. Name suppression
The tenant sought name suppression.
Her name was already published in the Tribunal Order (4635776, 4562389) dated 8 December 2023.
The present disputes involved the same parties but with different issues. While the tenant had partially succeeded in her application, I considered that the circumstances of the current case did not justify granting her name suppression application for the reasons below.: a. The house was not clean and tidy; and b. There were damages to the house.
Accordingly, the tenant’s name suppression application is declined. Filing fee
Both parties have succeeded in their applications.
Accordingly, the cost is to lie where it falls.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4856243 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 70A Pah Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4856243 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 70A Pah Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions