What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4940853?

The tribunal order states: Abubaker Sanussi and Eleanor Harrison must pay Grant Lee Jefferson

How much money was awarded in case 4940853?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent (3 Weeks Awarded: $4,800.00 awarded to landlord; Polishing Wooden Floors: $787.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $6,992.00 awarded to landlord; External gate; fireplace tiles; fron…: $948.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $907.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4940853?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4940853?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11153241-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4940853?

The tribunal order states: Abubaker Sanussi and Eleanor Harrison must pay Grant Lee Jefferson

How much money was awarded in case 4940853?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent (3 Weeks Awarded: $4,800.00 awarded to landlord; Polishing Wooden Floors: $787.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $6,992.00 awarded to landlord; External gate; fireplace tiles; fron…: $948.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $907.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4940853?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4940853?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11153241-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Box Hill, Khandallah, Wellington 6035 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4940853 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4940853 — net $8,811.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Loss of rent (3 weeks awarded	$4,800.00	Loss of rent (3 weeks awarded
Carpet replacement	$6,992.00	Carpet replacement
Polishing wooden floors	$787.00	Polishing wooden floors
Repairs: Sports lounge-removing damaged wallpaper & painting	$907.00	Repairs: Sports lounge-removing damaged wallpaper & painting
Repairs: External gate; fireplace tiles; front door handle; various latches	$948.75	Repairs: External gate; fireplace tiles; front door handle; various latches
Repairs: Plaster & paint damaged kitchen windowsill, wall damage/holes in downstairs lobby, large lounge & small lounge	$750.00	Repairs: Plaster & paint damaged kitchen windowsill, wall damage/holes in downstairs lobby, large lounge & small lounge
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,811.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,811.75

Order

Abubaker Sanussi and Eleanor Harrison must pay Grant Lee Jefferson $8,811.75 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $6,400.00 (6547849-033) to Grant Lee Jefferson immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenants.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The claim for unpaid utilities was settled by the tenants prior to the hearing. Background to tenancy and application
The tenant, Abubaker Sanussi, and the landlord’s son previously rented the premises from late 2022. When that tenancy ended, Mr Sanussi and Ms Harrison entered a new fixed term tenancy with the landlord commencing on 14 January 2024 and expiring on 13 November 2024.
The evidence establishes that the tenants fell into arrears early in the tenancy which resulted in the landlord serving several 14-day breach notices and advising of his intention to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord also advised the tenants at some stage during the tenancy that he intended to sell the premises and he gave a notice to end the tenancy on the expiry of the fixed term. Subsequently, the tenants indicated that they wished to vacate the premises and end the tenancy before the fixed term expired. In anticipation of the tenants vacating, the landlord conducted an end of tenancy inspection on 1 October 2024. The landlord says that the inspection did not go well with Mr Sanussi behaving in an abusive and aggressive manner. Another inspection was scheduled on 5 October 2024 at which the tenants were present and continued to make abusive comments to the landlords. The landlord says that the tenants had vacated the property sometime between 1 and 5 October 2024. They were able to take possession shortly after 5 October 2024 when keys were returned to them, and as evidenced by the fact that they arranged for a carpet supplier to access the property and provide a quote for carpet replacement on 7 October 2024.

How much is owed for rent?

I am satisfied that the tenancy ended on or about 5 October 2024 and rent is paid up to that date by the tenants. The tenants advised that they wished to vacate the property before the end of the term, and the landlords took possession of the property on or shortly after 5 October 2024. The landlord was then able to complete various cleaning and repairs to ready the property for sale by the date of the hearing on 12 November 2024.
However, the landlord seeks rent owed from 6 October to the end of the fixed term on 13 November 2024 (5 weeks and 4 days) of $8,914.29, noting that the property was not in any condition to be listed for sale prior to that date because of the extensive damage caused by the tenants requiring repair and the cleaning required at the end of the tenancy. The issue to determine is whether the landlord is entitled to rent for the remainder of the fixed term.
The tenants advised the landlord that they wished to vacate the tenancy on or about 1 October before the end of the fixed term. By this time, the landlord was anxious for the tenants to leave the premises because of rent arrears and damage discovered at the premises. The landlord arguably agreed to end the tenancy early so that rent is only payable to the date the tenants vacated. However, the landlord subsequently sent the tenants 14-day breach notices on 11 and 29 October 2024 demanding that they pay rent up to the end of the fixed term. There is also no other documentary evidence to suggest that the landlord agreed to end the tenancy early and forego rent for the remainder of the term. On balance, I find that the landlord did not agree to forego rent owed to the end of the fixed term. However, because the landlord took possession of the premises he was obliged to take reasonable steps to mitigate any loss and re-let the property before claiming any loss of rent from the tenants. Section 49 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides: Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract
In this case, the landlord had no intention of re-letting the property and wished to place it on the market for sale. However, I accept that cleaning and extensive repairs to remedy damage was required after the tenants vacated the premises on 5 October 2024 as detailed later in this decision. Therefore, it would not have been possible for the landlord to advertise the premises for relet, let alone put the premises on the market for sale, without some delay. Therefore I am persuaded that the landlord suffered a loss. However, I consider that the work required to remedy the property for sale was likely more extensive than the work required to relet the property. In the decision that follows, I have accepted that the tenants are liable for carpet replacement, re- sanding and sealing of wooden floors and other repairs. However, I have dismissed the more extensive claims for repairing and painting window frames and sills which means that the landlord is not able to claim a loss when this work was carried out.
Determining the loss is not an exact science and a common-sense and reasonable approach is required. In the circumstances, I consider that the landlord is entitled to $4,800 being the equivalent of three weeks’ lost rent.

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) RTA.
I accept that a comparison of photos taken by the landlord at an inspection of the premises on 18 April 2024, almost three months after the tenancy started, and photos taken at inspections on 1,5 and 7 October 2024, after the tenancy ended show that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. However, the landlord did not lodge a claim for cleaning until after the first hearing. It is important that the tenants are fully and fairly informed of any claims prior to the hearing. For that reason, I cannot consider the cleaning claim. However, I have considered the fact that cleaning was required when assessing the landlord’s claim for loss of rent as detailed above.

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 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. The landlord advised that the premises were not insured against tenant damage.
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.
Where damage has occurred and items must be replaced, 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.
The landlord claims that extensive damage was caused by the tenants during the tenancy. The landlord did not prepare a property inspection report nor take photos showing the condition of the premises when the tenancy started on 14 January 2024. However, the landlord conducted an inspection on 18 April 2024 and took photos of various areas of the premises. Accordingly, I can accept the 18 April inspection report and photos as the starting reference. Any damage shown in the 18 April report I consider must be deemed damage that occurred before the tenancy started because the landlord cannot prove whether it happened before or after 14 January. Otherwise, I have compared the 18 April inspection report with the inspection report prepared on 7 October 2024, after the tenancy ended, to determine whether the damage occurred during the tenancy.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Carpet stains (many of which appear to be dog urine) in 5 bedrooms, the sports lounge, small formal lounge and the upstairs and downstairs lobby and stairwell (9 areas): The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage, which was likely careless and, in some instances, intentional. For example, allowing multiple dog urine stains to occur and taking no reasonable steps to prevent it from happening amounts to intentional damage. The carpet supplier confirmed that the stains could not be removed through cleaning and carpets required replacement. The landlord said that the carpets were 7 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that carpet in bedrooms should last up to 12-14 years and carpets in living areas should last 10-12 years. I consider that overall the carpets in the premises should have lasted 13 years. Therefore the carpet replacement cost of $15,200 should be reduced for depreciation by 7/13 years (or 54%). Therefore, I award $6,992 for carpet replacement. The total amount awarded covers 9 separate areas and at least 9 or more incidents of damage. In that regard, the amount awarded for each area/incident is less than the permitted maximum of 4 weeks’ rent for careless damage. For those areas that were damaged intentionally, the maximum limit of 4 weeks rent does not apply.
Scratches and marks on the wooden floors in the entrance, the kitchen and family room: The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage which was likely careless. The landlord said that the floors were last sanded and coated with polyurethane 7 years ago. I am satisfied that the polyurethane coating on wooden floors should last between 5-10 years depending on factors like foot traffic. In the circumstances, I consider the remedial costs of $3,933 should be fully reduced for depreciation. However, but for the damage, the floor would likely have lasted for a few more years, such that it might be appropriate to award 10-20% of the replacement costs. In this case, I consider an award of $787 is justified, being 20% of the remedial cost to compensate for the unintended early remedial work required.
Damage to wallpaper in sports lounge: The paper had to be removed in the room and the walls were then re-painted at a cost of $6,049. The landlord said that the wallpaper was about 20 years old. Depreciation guidelines estimate that wallpaper will last up to 12 years. Therefore, I find that these costs should be fully depreciated. However, but for the damage, the wallpaper would likely have lasted for a few more years. Therefore, I award $907, being 15% of the remedial cost to compensate for the unintended early remedial work required.
Damage to external gate hinges; fireplace tiles; front door handle broken off; various latches broken and missing: The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage which was likely careless or intentional. I consider the full repair costs of $948.75 are justified and awarded.
Damage to internal walls and windows requiring plastering and painting: I find that there are insufficient close-up photos taken to show the condition of window frames throughout the premises and the extent to which they may have been damaged during the tenancy. I am satisfied that the kitchen windowsill was marked and required repainting, and there were holes and marks on walls in the downstairs lobby, the small lounge, and the large lounge. The landlord has claimed costs of $6,711 plus GST for this work. However, I award $750 for the work evidenced by the photos in the inspection reports. I have also taken into account the landlord’s evidence that the walls were last painted 7 years ago. Depreciation guidelines estimate that the life expectancy of painted walls in a tenancy is 8-14 years.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4940853 — net $8,811.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Loss of rent (3 weeks awarded	$4,800.00	Loss of rent (3 weeks awarded
Carpet replacement	$6,992.00	Carpet replacement
Polishing wooden floors	$787.00	Polishing wooden floors
Repairs: Sports lounge-removing damaged wallpaper & painting	$907.00	Repairs: Sports lounge-removing damaged wallpaper & painting
Repairs: External gate; fireplace tiles; front door handle; various latches	$948.75	Repairs: External gate; fireplace tiles; front door handle; various latches
Repairs: Plaster & paint damaged kitchen windowsill, wall damage/holes in downstairs lobby, large lounge & small lounge	$750.00	Repairs: Plaster & paint damaged kitchen windowsill, wall damage/holes in downstairs lobby, large lounge & small lounge
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,811.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,811.75

Order

Abubaker Sanussi and Eleanor Harrison must pay Grant Lee Jefferson $8,811.75 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $6,400.00 (6547849-033) to Grant Lee Jefferson immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenants.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The claim for unpaid utilities was settled by the tenants prior to the hearing. Background to tenancy and application
The tenant, Abubaker Sanussi, and the landlord’s son previously rented the premises from late 2022. When that tenancy ended, Mr Sanussi and Ms Harrison entered a new fixed term tenancy with the landlord commencing on 14 January 2024 and expiring on 13 November 2024.
The evidence establishes that the tenants fell into arrears early in the tenancy which resulted in the landlord serving several 14-day breach notices and advising of his intention to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord also advised the tenants at some stage during the tenancy that he intended to sell the premises and he gave a notice to end the tenancy on the expiry of the fixed term. Subsequently, the tenants indicated that they wished to vacate the premises and end the tenancy before the fixed term expired. In anticipation of the tenants vacating, the landlord conducted an end of tenancy inspection on 1 October 2024. The landlord says that the inspection did not go well with Mr Sanussi behaving in an abusive and aggressive manner. Another inspection was scheduled on 5 October 2024 at which the tenants were present and continued to make abusive comments to the landlords. The landlord says that the tenants had vacated the property sometime between 1 and 5 October 2024. They were able to take possession shortly after 5 October 2024 when keys were returned to them, and as evidenced by the fact that they arranged for a carpet supplier to access the property and provide a quote for carpet replacement on 7 October 2024.

How much is owed for rent?

I am satisfied that the tenancy ended on or about 5 October 2024 and rent is paid up to that date by the tenants. The tenants advised that they wished to vacate the property before the end of the term, and the landlords took possession of the property on or shortly after 5 October 2024. The landlord was then able to complete various cleaning and repairs to ready the property for sale by the date of the hearing on 12 November 2024.
However, the landlord seeks rent owed from 6 October to the end of the fixed term on 13 November 2024 (5 weeks and 4 days) of $8,914.29, noting that the property was not in any condition to be listed for sale prior to that date because of the extensive damage caused by the tenants requiring repair and the cleaning required at the end of the tenancy. The issue to determine is whether the landlord is entitled to rent for the remainder of the fixed term.
The tenants advised the landlord that they wished to vacate the tenancy on or about 1 October before the end of the fixed term. By this time, the landlord was anxious for the tenants to leave the premises because of rent arrears and damage discovered at the premises. The landlord arguably agreed to end the tenancy early so that rent is only payable to the date the tenants vacated. However, the landlord subsequently sent the tenants 14-day breach notices on 11 and 29 October 2024 demanding that they pay rent up to the end of the fixed term. There is also no other documentary evidence to suggest that the landlord agreed to end the tenancy early and forego rent for the remainder of the term. On balance, I find that the landlord did not agree to forego rent owed to the end of the fixed term. However, because the landlord took possession of the premises he was obliged to take reasonable steps to mitigate any loss and re-let the property before claiming any loss of rent from the tenants. Section 49 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides: Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract
In this case, the landlord had no intention of re-letting the property and wished to place it on the market for sale. However, I accept that cleaning and extensive repairs to remedy damage was required after the tenants vacated the premises on 5 October 2024 as detailed later in this decision. Therefore, it would not have been possible for the landlord to advertise the premises for relet, let alone put the premises on the market for sale, without some delay. Therefore I am persuaded that the landlord suffered a loss. However, I consider that the work required to remedy the property for sale was likely more extensive than the work required to relet the property. In the decision that follows, I have accepted that the tenants are liable for carpet replacement, re- sanding and sealing of wooden floors and other repairs. However, I have dismissed the more extensive claims for repairing and painting window frames and sills which means that the landlord is not able to claim a loss when this work was carried out.
Determining the loss is not an exact science and a common-sense and reasonable approach is required. In the circumstances, I consider that the landlord is entitled to $4,800 being the equivalent of three weeks’ lost rent.

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) RTA.
I accept that a comparison of photos taken by the landlord at an inspection of the premises on 18 April 2024, almost three months after the tenancy started, and photos taken at inspections on 1,5 and 7 October 2024, after the tenancy ended show that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. However, the landlord did not lodge a claim for cleaning until after the first hearing. It is important that the tenants are fully and fairly informed of any claims prior to the hearing. For that reason, I cannot consider the cleaning claim. However, I have considered the fact that cleaning was required when assessing the landlord’s claim for loss of rent as detailed above.

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 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. The landlord advised that the premises were not insured against tenant damage.
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.
Where damage has occurred and items must be replaced, 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.
The landlord claims that extensive damage was caused by the tenants during the tenancy. The landlord did not prepare a property inspection report nor take photos showing the condition of the premises when the tenancy started on 14 January 2024. However, the landlord conducted an inspection on 18 April 2024 and took photos of various areas of the premises. Accordingly, I can accept the 18 April inspection report and photos as the starting reference. Any damage shown in the 18 April report I consider must be deemed damage that occurred before the tenancy started because the landlord cannot prove whether it happened before or after 14 January. Otherwise, I have compared the 18 April inspection report with the inspection report prepared on 7 October 2024, after the tenancy ended, to determine whether the damage occurred during the tenancy.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Carpet stains (many of which appear to be dog urine) in 5 bedrooms, the sports lounge, small formal lounge and the upstairs and downstairs lobby and stairwell (9 areas): The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage, which was likely careless and, in some instances, intentional. For example, allowing multiple dog urine stains to occur and taking no reasonable steps to prevent it from happening amounts to intentional damage. The carpet supplier confirmed that the stains could not be removed through cleaning and carpets required replacement. The landlord said that the carpets were 7 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that carpet in bedrooms should last up to 12-14 years and carpets in living areas should last 10-12 years. I consider that overall the carpets in the premises should have lasted 13 years. Therefore the carpet replacement cost of $15,200 should be reduced for depreciation by 7/13 years (or 54%). Therefore, I award $6,992 for carpet replacement. The total amount awarded covers 9 separate areas and at least 9 or more incidents of damage. In that regard, the amount awarded for each area/incident is less than the permitted maximum of 4 weeks’ rent for careless damage. For those areas that were damaged intentionally, the maximum limit of 4 weeks rent does not apply.
Scratches and marks on the wooden floors in the entrance, the kitchen and family room: The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage which was likely careless. The landlord said that the floors were last sanded and coated with polyurethane 7 years ago. I am satisfied that the polyurethane coating on wooden floors should last between 5-10 years depending on factors like foot traffic. In the circumstances, I consider the remedial costs of $3,933 should be fully reduced for depreciation. However, but for the damage, the floor would likely have lasted for a few more years, such that it might be appropriate to award 10-20% of the replacement costs. In this case, I consider an award of $787 is justified, being 20% of the remedial cost to compensate for the unintended early remedial work required.
Damage to wallpaper in sports lounge: The paper had to be removed in the room and the walls were then re-painted at a cost of $6,049. The landlord said that the wallpaper was about 20 years old. Depreciation guidelines estimate that wallpaper will last up to 12 years. Therefore, I find that these costs should be fully depreciated. However, but for the damage, the wallpaper would likely have lasted for a few more years. Therefore, I award $907, being 15% of the remedial cost to compensate for the unintended early remedial work required.
Damage to external gate hinges; fireplace tiles; front door handle broken off; various latches broken and missing: The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage which was likely careless or intentional. I consider the full repair costs of $948.75 are justified and awarded.
Damage to internal walls and windows requiring plastering and painting: I find that there are insufficient close-up photos taken to show the condition of window frames throughout the premises and the extent to which they may have been damaged during the tenancy. I am satisfied that the kitchen windowsill was marked and required repainting, and there were holes and marks on walls in the downstairs lobby, the small lounge, and the large lounge. The landlord has claimed costs of $6,711 plus GST for this work. However, I award $750 for the work evidenced by the photos in the inspection reports. I have also taken into account the landlord’s evidence that the walls were last painted 7 years ago. Depreciation guidelines estimate that the life expectancy of painted walls in a tenancy is 8-14 years.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4940853 — Property damage at 3 Box Hill, Khandallah, Wellington 6035

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4940853 — Property damage at 3 Box Hill, Khandallah, Wellington 6035

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

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

Frequently asked questions