What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4905713 about?

The tribunal order states: Tangi Tawa must pay [The landlord/s] $14,649.65 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4905713?

Carpet Inspection: $204.70 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $525.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss Of Rent: $1,460.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $332.81 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $280.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,830.00 awarded to landlord; Sliding Door Lock: $247.25 awarded to landlord; Towel Rail And Door Stop: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $688.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4905713?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4905713?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10910975-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4905713 about?

The tribunal order states: Tangi Tawa must pay [The landlord/s] $14,649.65 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4905713?

Carpet Inspection: $204.70 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $525.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss Of Rent: $1,460.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $332.81 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $280.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,830.00 awarded to landlord; Sliding Door Lock: $247.25 awarded to landlord; Towel Rail And Door Stop: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $688.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4905713?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4905713?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10910975-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4905713 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4905713 — net $14,649.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$688.85	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$525.00	Cleaning
Pest control	$332.81	Pest control
Lock/key replacement	$280.60	Lock/key replacement
Carpet inspection	$204.70	Carpet inspection
Carpet replacement	$4,700.00	Carpet replacement
Repairs to stairs, sliding door, window frames	$345.00	Repairs to stairs, sliding door, window frames
Repair and painting of walls	$4,830.00	Repair and painting of walls
Repairs: towel rail and door stop	$115.00	Repairs: towel rail and door stop
Repairs: sliding door lock	$247.25	Repairs: sliding door lock
Exemplary damages	$900.00	Exemplary damages
Compensation: loss of rent	$1,460.00	loss of rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$14,649.65
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$14,649.65

Order

Tangi Tawa must pay [The landlord/s] $14,649.65 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord, represented by [The landlord/s representative], attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant, despite the start of the hearing being delayed. As the tenant had been notified, the hearing proceeded in her absence. Following the hearing, the landlord sent in additional photographic evidence and other documents.
This tenancy began on 26 August 2023 and ended on 10 May 2024 following an order of the Tribunal terminating the tenancy. The rent is $730.00 per week. The bond has been released to the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks exemplary damages on the basis that the tenant sublet the premises to a family member (her mother) who resided there in her absence. Following a routine inspection on 13 March 2024, the landlord discovered damage to the premises, and states the tenant is liable for this damage.

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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The landlord claims cleaning, rubbish removal and pest control costs. The landlord has provided photographic evidence and invoices. This evidence establishes that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. There was a significant amount of rubbish left behind, including mattresses, furniture and belongings. Further cleaning was required, and pest control measures had to be taken due to the presence of fleas.
The landlord states that the tenant did not return the keys, so the cost of changing the locks and keys was incurred. An invoice has been produced.
The amounts ordered are proved. General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord claims compensation for damage. To be successful, 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 of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the RTA applies. 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the RTA.
In the tenancy agreement it is noted that the landlord is insured, and that the excess amount is $1,269.90. The landlord has since advised that while the property is insured, there was no cover for the damage at the premises. The rent for the premises is $730.00 per week.
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) of the 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.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims compensation for damage to the following: • Carpet • Walls • Stairs, window frame • Sliding door and lock • Towel rail holder and door stop
From the photographic, documentary and oral evidence produced by the landlord, I am satisfied that the above damage was caused during the tenancy. This damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord considers this damage to be intentional. The tenant will be liable for damage caused by people at the premises with her permission.
The work to repair the damage has been undertaken, as confirmed by the invoice from [The construction company]. Each claim is considered in turn below. Carpet
The landlord states that a dog was kept on the premises. The dog had urinated on the carpet and caused damage throughout. A carpet cleaning professional from [The carpet cleaning company] assessed the carpet and wrote, in a report dated 22 May 2024, that urine was detected in all areas. It was so widespread and concentrated that the carpet could not be washed. Both the carpet and underlay needed to be replaced.
The carpet was new at the start of the tenancy, and just under a year old at the end of the tenancy. Being satisfied that this damage was intentional, the landlord is to be compensated for replacement of the carpet, in the amount of $4,700.00. In view of the condition and age of the carpet (being less than a year old), I award the full replacement cost.
I also award the cost of the [carpet cleaning company] invoice for the carpet inspection and report ($204.70), being satisfied that this cost was reasonably incurred. Walls
The landlord’s evidence shows there was damage to many walls throughout the premises. The landlord notes damage to multiple walls in the bedrooms, family room and lounge, with evidence of puncture marks or holes. The damage looks likely to be intentional, although some may also be the result of careless damage. A routine inspection in March 2024 identified a hole in the lounge wall from a television bracket. The landlord is to be compensated for the repair, plastering and repainting of the walls, in the amount of $4,830.00. Stairs, sliding door and window frame
The landlord’s evidence shows damage, most likely caused by the dog, to the stairs, sliding door and window frame. The dog was kept on the premises without the landlord’s consent. This damage can be regarded as intentional. The amount sought for repair of this damage ($345.00) is awarded above. Towel rail, doorstop and sliding door lock
The landlord incurred costs for the repair of the towel rail, which had been pulled away from the wall, and the door stop ($115.00). There was also damage to the sliding door handle and lock ($247.25). The repair costs for these items are awarded above.
I am satisfied that the amounts ordered above are proved. In making the above awards I have taken 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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Exemplary damages: Subletting of the premises
[The landlord/s] claim the tenant has sublet or parted with possession of the premises without their prior written consent.
In the absence of a specific provision in the tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting or parting of possession of the tenancy, a tenant may do so but only with the prior written consent of the landlord. The landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably. See section 44(2) and (3) of the RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 44(2A)(b) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
The landlord has provided an email from the tenant’s mother, dated 4 April 2024, stating that the tenant left the premises in September 2023. However, there is also a text from the tenant to the landlord stating that she was away for one month and was returning. While this text suggests the tenant was only away temporarily, I note other evidence which indicates the tenant most likely parted with possession. This includes the absence of the tenant when the landlord conducted its previous two property inspections, and the phone calls between the landlord and the tenant’s mother about the tenant no longer living at the premises, and asking about the possibility of her taking over the tenancy.
Therefore, on balance, I find that the tenant sublet the premises without the landlord’s prior written consent. This is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
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) of the RTA.
Applying the statutory test, I consider there to be sufficient evidence of intent. While I have not had any direct evidence from the tenant, the totality of the other available evidence demonstrates that the unlawful act was most likely intentional. The effect of the unlawful act has been significant, particularly the damage caused while the premises was sublet. The landlord has provided a sworn written statement from the owner of the premises which describes the emotional and financial effect. The owner suffered financial loss, having had to meet the cost of repairs to remedy the damage. There has also been an emotional toll. There is a strong public interest in deterring subletting without prior consent. Taking all these factors into account, I consider exemplary damages of $900.00 ought to be awarded.
In the application, the landlord also noted exemplary damages for the removal of smoke alarms. However, the landlord’s written submissions do not provide further details about this claim. The additional evidence provided by the landlord after the hearing also does not address this, and so it is dismissed. Compensation for loss of rent
The landlord seeks 6 weeks loss of rent, being $4,380.00. This is sought on the basis that if the landlord had been covered by insurance, loss of rent would normally amount to 6 weeks rent. In this case, it may be noted that there was a 9 week delay between the eviction date of 10 May 2024 and the date the premises was first advertised, on 16 July 2024. The landlord’s oral evidence at the hearing is that a new tenancy began on 15 September 2024.
The landlord acknowledges the delay in advertising for new tenants but states this was due to the owner’s difficulties securing funds to finance the repairs, as explained in the owner’s written statement. The landlord notes some of the invoices remain outstanding. The financial and emotional impact of the tenant’s actions have been highlighted.
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the RTA or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. So, recovery is limited to actual loss resulting from the breach that is reasonably foreseeable when the contract was made.
In this case, a reasonable person would foresee that the premises may not be able to be re-let immediately where this type of damage occurs, requiring significant repair work. In addition, a landlord cannot expect the premises to be immediately re-tenanted after the end of a tenancy. There will likely be periods where the premises are not available for rent for a variety of reasons, including maintenance and repairs, whether or not caused by the actions of a tenant. In many circumstances, loss of rent while repairing damage is considered part and parcel of the business of being a landlord.
Taking all these factors into account, and noting the circumstances in this case, I find that compensation for two weeks loss of rent is justified. Therefore, I award $1,460.00. Filing fee
Because the landlord has been successful with the claim, the tenant is to pay the landlord’s filing fee. Name suppression
An application for suppression has been made in this case by the landlord, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details, in view of the landlord being successful in the proceedings.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4905713 — net $14,649.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$688.85	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$525.00	Cleaning
Pest control	$332.81	Pest control
Lock/key replacement	$280.60	Lock/key replacement
Carpet inspection	$204.70	Carpet inspection
Carpet replacement	$4,700.00	Carpet replacement
Repairs to stairs, sliding door, window frames	$345.00	Repairs to stairs, sliding door, window frames
Repair and painting of walls	$4,830.00	Repair and painting of walls
Repairs: towel rail and door stop	$115.00	Repairs: towel rail and door stop
Repairs: sliding door lock	$247.25	Repairs: sliding door lock
Exemplary damages	$900.00	Exemplary damages
Compensation: loss of rent	$1,460.00	loss of rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$14,649.65
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$14,649.65

Order

Tangi Tawa must pay [The landlord/s] $14,649.65 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord, represented by [The landlord/s representative], attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant, despite the start of the hearing being delayed. As the tenant had been notified, the hearing proceeded in her absence. Following the hearing, the landlord sent in additional photographic evidence and other documents.
This tenancy began on 26 August 2023 and ended on 10 May 2024 following an order of the Tribunal terminating the tenancy. The rent is $730.00 per week. The bond has been released to the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks exemplary damages on the basis that the tenant sublet the premises to a family member (her mother) who resided there in her absence. Following a routine inspection on 13 March 2024, the landlord discovered damage to the premises, and states the tenant is liable for this damage.

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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The landlord claims cleaning, rubbish removal and pest control costs. The landlord has provided photographic evidence and invoices. This evidence establishes that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. There was a significant amount of rubbish left behind, including mattresses, furniture and belongings. Further cleaning was required, and pest control measures had to be taken due to the presence of fleas.
The landlord states that the tenant did not return the keys, so the cost of changing the locks and keys was incurred. An invoice has been produced.
The amounts ordered are proved. General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord claims compensation for damage. To be successful, 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 of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the RTA applies. 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the RTA.
In the tenancy agreement it is noted that the landlord is insured, and that the excess amount is $1,269.90. The landlord has since advised that while the property is insured, there was no cover for the damage at the premises. The rent for the premises is $730.00 per week.
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) of the 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.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims compensation for damage to the following: • Carpet • Walls • Stairs, window frame • Sliding door and lock • Towel rail holder and door stop
From the photographic, documentary and oral evidence produced by the landlord, I am satisfied that the above damage was caused during the tenancy. This damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord considers this damage to be intentional. The tenant will be liable for damage caused by people at the premises with her permission.
The work to repair the damage has been undertaken, as confirmed by the invoice from [The construction company]. Each claim is considered in turn below. Carpet
The landlord states that a dog was kept on the premises. The dog had urinated on the carpet and caused damage throughout. A carpet cleaning professional from [The carpet cleaning company] assessed the carpet and wrote, in a report dated 22 May 2024, that urine was detected in all areas. It was so widespread and concentrated that the carpet could not be washed. Both the carpet and underlay needed to be replaced.
The carpet was new at the start of the tenancy, and just under a year old at the end of the tenancy. Being satisfied that this damage was intentional, the landlord is to be compensated for replacement of the carpet, in the amount of $4,700.00. In view of the condition and age of the carpet (being less than a year old), I award the full replacement cost.
I also award the cost of the [carpet cleaning company] invoice for the carpet inspection and report ($204.70), being satisfied that this cost was reasonably incurred. Walls
The landlord’s evidence shows there was damage to many walls throughout the premises. The landlord notes damage to multiple walls in the bedrooms, family room and lounge, with evidence of puncture marks or holes. The damage looks likely to be intentional, although some may also be the result of careless damage. A routine inspection in March 2024 identified a hole in the lounge wall from a television bracket. The landlord is to be compensated for the repair, plastering and repainting of the walls, in the amount of $4,830.00. Stairs, sliding door and window frame
The landlord’s evidence shows damage, most likely caused by the dog, to the stairs, sliding door and window frame. The dog was kept on the premises without the landlord’s consent. This damage can be regarded as intentional. The amount sought for repair of this damage ($345.00) is awarded above. Towel rail, doorstop and sliding door lock
The landlord incurred costs for the repair of the towel rail, which had been pulled away from the wall, and the door stop ($115.00). There was also damage to the sliding door handle and lock ($247.25). The repair costs for these items are awarded above.
I am satisfied that the amounts ordered above are proved. In making the above awards I have taken 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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Exemplary damages: Subletting of the premises
[The landlord/s] claim the tenant has sublet or parted with possession of the premises without their prior written consent.
In the absence of a specific provision in the tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting or parting of possession of the tenancy, a tenant may do so but only with the prior written consent of the landlord. The landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably. See section 44(2) and (3) of the RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 44(2A)(b) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
The landlord has provided an email from the tenant’s mother, dated 4 April 2024, stating that the tenant left the premises in September 2023. However, there is also a text from the tenant to the landlord stating that she was away for one month and was returning. While this text suggests the tenant was only away temporarily, I note other evidence which indicates the tenant most likely parted with possession. This includes the absence of the tenant when the landlord conducted its previous two property inspections, and the phone calls between the landlord and the tenant’s mother about the tenant no longer living at the premises, and asking about the possibility of her taking over the tenancy.
Therefore, on balance, I find that the tenant sublet the premises without the landlord’s prior written consent. This is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
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) of the RTA.
Applying the statutory test, I consider there to be sufficient evidence of intent. While I have not had any direct evidence from the tenant, the totality of the other available evidence demonstrates that the unlawful act was most likely intentional. The effect of the unlawful act has been significant, particularly the damage caused while the premises was sublet. The landlord has provided a sworn written statement from the owner of the premises which describes the emotional and financial effect. The owner suffered financial loss, having had to meet the cost of repairs to remedy the damage. There has also been an emotional toll. There is a strong public interest in deterring subletting without prior consent. Taking all these factors into account, I consider exemplary damages of $900.00 ought to be awarded.
In the application, the landlord also noted exemplary damages for the removal of smoke alarms. However, the landlord’s written submissions do not provide further details about this claim. The additional evidence provided by the landlord after the hearing also does not address this, and so it is dismissed. Compensation for loss of rent
The landlord seeks 6 weeks loss of rent, being $4,380.00. This is sought on the basis that if the landlord had been covered by insurance, loss of rent would normally amount to 6 weeks rent. In this case, it may be noted that there was a 9 week delay between the eviction date of 10 May 2024 and the date the premises was first advertised, on 16 July 2024. The landlord’s oral evidence at the hearing is that a new tenancy began on 15 September 2024.
The landlord acknowledges the delay in advertising for new tenants but states this was due to the owner’s difficulties securing funds to finance the repairs, as explained in the owner’s written statement. The landlord notes some of the invoices remain outstanding. The financial and emotional impact of the tenant’s actions have been highlighted.
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the RTA or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. So, recovery is limited to actual loss resulting from the breach that is reasonably foreseeable when the contract was made.
In this case, a reasonable person would foresee that the premises may not be able to be re-let immediately where this type of damage occurs, requiring significant repair work. In addition, a landlord cannot expect the premises to be immediately re-tenanted after the end of a tenancy. There will likely be periods where the premises are not available for rent for a variety of reasons, including maintenance and repairs, whether or not caused by the actions of a tenant. In many circumstances, loss of rent while repairing damage is considered part and parcel of the business of being a landlord.
Taking all these factors into account, and noting the circumstances in this case, I find that compensation for two weeks loss of rent is justified. Therefore, I award $1,460.00. Filing fee
Because the landlord has been successful with the claim, the tenant is to pay the landlord’s filing fee. Name suppression
An application for suppression has been made in this case by the landlord, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details, in view of the landlord being successful in the proceedings.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4905713 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4905713 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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