What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4909855?

The tribunal order states: Demelza Wallace and Ezra Jenkin must pay Simon Hope and Angela Hope

How much money was awarded in case 4909855?

Cleaning: $55.08 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $335.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $720.58 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $97.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $69.73 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $670.00 awarded to landlord; Trailer Hire And Tip Fees: $103.25 awarded to landlord; Various Gratuities: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4909855?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4909855?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10970616-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4909855?

The tribunal order states: Demelza Wallace and Ezra Jenkin must pay Simon Hope and Angela Hope

How much money was awarded in case 4909855?

Cleaning: $55.08 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $335.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $720.58 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $97.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $69.73 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $670.00 awarded to landlord; Trailer Hire And Tip Fees: $103.25 awarded to landlord; Various Gratuities: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4909855?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4909855?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10970616-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 228 Chapel Street, Solway, Masterton 5810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4909855 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Unit/Flat 2, 228 Chapel Street, Solway, Masterton 5810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4909855 — 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 4909855 — net $1,882.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$670.00	Rent arrears
Trailer hire and tip fees	$103.25	Trailer hire and tip fees
Cleaning products	$55.08	Cleaning products
Cleaning	$400.00	Cleaning
Various gratuities	$100.00	Various gratuities
Curtain replacement	$150.60	Curtain replacement
Door repairs	$720.58	Door repairs
Floor repairs	$97.75	Floor repairs
Fence repairs	$69.73	Fence repairs
Rent compensation	$335.00	Rent compensation
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,882.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,882.43

Claims and awards for application 4909855 — net $1,882.43 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $670.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Trailer hire and tip fees

Amount: $103.25
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Trailer hire and tip fees

Cleaning products

Amount: $55.08
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning products

Cleaning

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Various gratuities

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Various gratuities

Curtain replacement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Exemplary damages Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

Demelza Wallace and Ezra Jenkin must pay Simon Hope and Angela Hope $1,882.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$670.00 Trailer hire and tip fees$103.25 Cleaning products$55.08 Cleaning$400.00 Various gratuities$100.00 Curtain replacement$150.60 Door repairs$720.58 Floor repairs$97.75 Fence repairs$69.73 Rent compensation$335.00 Exemplary damages$500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$3,222.43 Minus bond-$1,340.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,882.43

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlords against the tenants.
Only the landlords appeared at the hearing today. I am satisfied that the tenants have been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 23 December 2023. The co-tenants are Demelza Wallace and Ezra Jenkins. The tenancy ended following 28 days notice from one of the tenants.
When the premises were returned, the landlord determined that there was damage repairs and cleaning needed, and now applies to the Tribunal in relation to that.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means 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.

RENT ARREARS

The landlord has applied for an order that the tenant pay rent arrears of $670.00.
The landlord has provided the Tribunal with a rent ledger. I have no reason to consider that record to be incorrect.
The landlord has established that the tenants were in arrears of the amount claimed, and that is ordered in full.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. Trailer hire and tip fees
The landlord claims $103.25 for trailer hire and tip fees. The photographs provided at the hearing support that there was rubbish left. The tenants are required at the end of the tenancy to remove all rubbish, and return the premises clean and tidy. I am satisfied that this amount has arisen from a breach on the part of the tenants, so is ordered in full. Cleaning products
The premises were not returned reasonably clean. Again the photographs support that, particularly in relation to the stove. The landlord reports that there was thick grime and smoke residue in the kitchen. This claim is established, cleaning products would reasonably have been needed to remedy the breach, and are ordered in full. Cleaning
The landlord states that there was considerable cleaning needed in the tenancy, taking 22 hours. The landlord is claiming $400.00 for their time with this. This claim is reasonable and ordered in full. Accommodation
The landlord has claimed for overnight accommodation when they were cleaning the premises. As I explained, I am not persuaded this cost can be ordered. While I have no difficulty in ordering compensation for the cleaning time, accommodation would be a cost beyond what would be expected, and one a commercial cleaner would not have charged. This claim is declined. Gratuity
The landlord needed to pay $25.00 in order to borrow a carpet cleaner, and $25.00 for someone to clean and dry the curtains. $50.00 was paid in order to borrow a car with a tow bar. These costs seem reasonable and were incurred by the landlord in the course of remedying the tenant’s breaches, so are ordered in full.

COMPENSATION

With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Curtains
The landlords state that the curtains were 18 months old at the start of the tenancy, and when the tenancy was returned they were unclean and ripped, and ultimately not useable. The replacement cost for the curtains was $200.80. As I noted at the hearing, I must apply depreciation to this claim. The estimated useful life of curtains in a residential tenancy according to the Inland Revenue Depreciation Guides (IR 265) is 8 years, which means that the curtains had about 6 years of value remaining. I have ordered compensation of $150.60 for that. Door repairs
The landlord has claimed the repair cost for 2 doors (3 sides), the photographs show holes in those doors. The repair cost for the door damage is $720.58. I am certain this is not fair wear and tear, so the onus shifts to the tenants to prove it was not careless or intentional damage. I have no reason to believe this damage was anything other than intentional damage, so this cost is ordered in full. Floor damage
During the tenancy the tenants caused a rip in the kitchen floor, and that needed a patch from a floor repairer. The cost for the repair was $97.75. Again I do not consider this to be fair wear and tear. The tenants have not proven this damage is not careless or intentional damage. This claim is ordered in full. Fence repair
The landlords seek repair costs of a fence, the damage caused by the tenants pushing back on the fence with a chair. The claim is for a bracket to brace the fence. I am satisfied this is not a case of fair wear and tear, the damage does seem like careless damage, so the tenants are liable for this amount. Rent compensation
The landlord has claimed compensation for one week of rent, because it took a week in order to remedy the above breaches. There was a tenant who had been found but they were delayed by a week from moving in. I have accepted that there are breaches that the landlord needs to remedy, and taking a week in order to get this work completed seems reasonable. This claim is ordered in full.

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

Section 40 of the RTA sets out the obligations on the tenant, and that includes at section 40(2)(c): (2). The tenant shall not— (a) ... (c) cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
The landlord states that during the tenancy there has been interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of a neighbouring tenant and neighbours, including: a. Walking through the property of a neighbour to get to shops. b. Five police visits in the last week. c. Regular parties late at night. d. Shouting and other noise e. Visitors to the premises late at night.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act, which for a breach of section 40(2)(c) is $3,000.00.
Based on what the landlord described at the hearing, I accept that the tenants have breached their obligations under section 40(2)(c) as it relates to their neighbours, and that is therefore an unlawful act.
I have taken into consideration the factors set out in section 109. I consider the tenant’s breaches were likely to have been intentional. There are strong interests for neighbours and other tenants, and the public generally, not to be unreasonably disturbed or have intrusions on their privacy. I consider making an order in this case would be just, and I make that order. On balance, I have determined that an order of $500.00 would be proportionate, and fair.

FILING FEE AND BOND

The applicant has been mostly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.
Finally the bond has already been released to the landlord, so has been accounted for in my order above.

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 4909855 — net $1,882.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$670.00	Rent arrears
Trailer hire and tip fees	$103.25	Trailer hire and tip fees
Cleaning products	$55.08	Cleaning products
Cleaning	$400.00	Cleaning
Various gratuities	$100.00	Various gratuities
Curtain replacement	$150.60	Curtain replacement
Door repairs	$720.58	Door repairs
Floor repairs	$97.75	Floor repairs
Fence repairs	$69.73	Fence repairs
Rent compensation	$335.00	Rent compensation
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,882.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,882.43

Claims and awards for application 4909855 — net $1,882.43 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $670.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Trailer hire and tip fees

Amount: $103.25
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Trailer hire and tip fees

Cleaning products

Amount: $55.08
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning products

Cleaning

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Various gratuities

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Various gratuities

Curtain replacement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Exemplary damages Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

Demelza Wallace and Ezra Jenkin must pay Simon Hope and Angela Hope $1,882.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$670.00 Trailer hire and tip fees$103.25 Cleaning products$55.08 Cleaning$400.00 Various gratuities$100.00 Curtain replacement$150.60 Door repairs$720.58 Floor repairs$97.75 Fence repairs$69.73 Rent compensation$335.00 Exemplary damages$500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$3,222.43 Minus bond-$1,340.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,882.43

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlords against the tenants.
Only the landlords appeared at the hearing today. I am satisfied that the tenants have been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 23 December 2023. The co-tenants are Demelza Wallace and Ezra Jenkins. The tenancy ended following 28 days notice from one of the tenants.
When the premises were returned, the landlord determined that there was damage repairs and cleaning needed, and now applies to the Tribunal in relation to that.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means 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.

RENT ARREARS

The landlord has applied for an order that the tenant pay rent arrears of $670.00.
The landlord has provided the Tribunal with a rent ledger. I have no reason to consider that record to be incorrect.
The landlord has established that the tenants were in arrears of the amount claimed, and that is ordered in full.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. Trailer hire and tip fees
The landlord claims $103.25 for trailer hire and tip fees. The photographs provided at the hearing support that there was rubbish left. The tenants are required at the end of the tenancy to remove all rubbish, and return the premises clean and tidy. I am satisfied that this amount has arisen from a breach on the part of the tenants, so is ordered in full. Cleaning products
The premises were not returned reasonably clean. Again the photographs support that, particularly in relation to the stove. The landlord reports that there was thick grime and smoke residue in the kitchen. This claim is established, cleaning products would reasonably have been needed to remedy the breach, and are ordered in full. Cleaning
The landlord states that there was considerable cleaning needed in the tenancy, taking 22 hours. The landlord is claiming $400.00 for their time with this. This claim is reasonable and ordered in full. Accommodation
The landlord has claimed for overnight accommodation when they were cleaning the premises. As I explained, I am not persuaded this cost can be ordered. While I have no difficulty in ordering compensation for the cleaning time, accommodation would be a cost beyond what would be expected, and one a commercial cleaner would not have charged. This claim is declined. Gratuity
The landlord needed to pay $25.00 in order to borrow a carpet cleaner, and $25.00 for someone to clean and dry the curtains. $50.00 was paid in order to borrow a car with a tow bar. These costs seem reasonable and were incurred by the landlord in the course of remedying the tenant’s breaches, so are ordered in full.

COMPENSATION

With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Curtains
The landlords state that the curtains were 18 months old at the start of the tenancy, and when the tenancy was returned they were unclean and ripped, and ultimately not useable. The replacement cost for the curtains was $200.80. As I noted at the hearing, I must apply depreciation to this claim. The estimated useful life of curtains in a residential tenancy according to the Inland Revenue Depreciation Guides (IR 265) is 8 years, which means that the curtains had about 6 years of value remaining. I have ordered compensation of $150.60 for that. Door repairs
The landlord has claimed the repair cost for 2 doors (3 sides), the photographs show holes in those doors. The repair cost for the door damage is $720.58. I am certain this is not fair wear and tear, so the onus shifts to the tenants to prove it was not careless or intentional damage. I have no reason to believe this damage was anything other than intentional damage, so this cost is ordered in full. Floor damage
During the tenancy the tenants caused a rip in the kitchen floor, and that needed a patch from a floor repairer. The cost for the repair was $97.75. Again I do not consider this to be fair wear and tear. The tenants have not proven this damage is not careless or intentional damage. This claim is ordered in full. Fence repair
The landlords seek repair costs of a fence, the damage caused by the tenants pushing back on the fence with a chair. The claim is for a bracket to brace the fence. I am satisfied this is not a case of fair wear and tear, the damage does seem like careless damage, so the tenants are liable for this amount. Rent compensation
The landlord has claimed compensation for one week of rent, because it took a week in order to remedy the above breaches. There was a tenant who had been found but they were delayed by a week from moving in. I have accepted that there are breaches that the landlord needs to remedy, and taking a week in order to get this work completed seems reasonable. This claim is ordered in full.

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

Section 40 of the RTA sets out the obligations on the tenant, and that includes at section 40(2)(c): (2). The tenant shall not— (a) ... (c) cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
The landlord states that during the tenancy there has been interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of a neighbouring tenant and neighbours, including: a. Walking through the property of a neighbour to get to shops. b. Five police visits in the last week. c. Regular parties late at night. d. Shouting and other noise e. Visitors to the premises late at night.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act, which for a breach of section 40(2)(c) is $3,000.00.
Based on what the landlord described at the hearing, I accept that the tenants have breached their obligations under section 40(2)(c) as it relates to their neighbours, and that is therefore an unlawful act.
I have taken into consideration the factors set out in section 109. I consider the tenant’s breaches were likely to have been intentional. There are strong interests for neighbours and other tenants, and the public generally, not to be unreasonably disturbed or have intrusions on their privacy. I consider making an order in this case would be just, and I make that order. On balance, I have determined that an order of $500.00 would be proportionate, and fair.

FILING FEE AND BOND

The applicant has been mostly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.
Finally the bond has already been released to the landlord, so has been accounted for in my order above.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4909855 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 228 Chapel Street, Solway, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4909855 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 228 Chapel Street, Solway, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

RENT ARREARS

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

COMPENSATION

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

FILING FEE AND BOND

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

RENT ARREARS

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

COMPENSATION

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

FILING FEE AND BOND

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions