What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5119868 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5119868?

Cleaning: $195.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application [ Suppres…: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $313.68 awarded to landlord; Remove Security Camera: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,595.06 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $59.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5119868?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5119868?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11996382-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5119868 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5119868?

Cleaning: $195.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application [ Suppres…: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $313.68 awarded to landlord; Remove Security Camera: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,595.06 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $59.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5119868?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5119868?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11996382-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5119868 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5119868 — net $195.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application [ suppressed] dated [ suppressed	$27.00	Previous order application [ suppressed] dated [ suppressed
Rubbish removal	$1,595.06	Rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning	$195.00	Carpet Cleaning
Water rates	$59.43	Water rates
Lock/key replacement	$313.68	Lock/key replacement
Remove security camera	$115.00	Remove security camera
Exemplary damages using the property for unlawful purpose	$250.00	Exemplary damages using the property for unlawful purpose
Net award	$195.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$195.17

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenant must pay the landlord $195.17 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on [ suppressed] under application [ suppressed].
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,332.17 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The tenancy commenced on 28 October 2022. On 13 November 2024, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy effective 17 November 2024. The termination was the result of the tenant failing to remedy a 14-day breach notice to maintain the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Following the end of the tenancy the landlord filed an application seeking orders for disposal of goods left at the property.
The Tribunal found the goods to have little or no value and on [ suppressed] ordered the landlord to deliver any personal documents to the police, and then to dispose of any other items as they saw fit.
On 23 December 2024, the landlord filed a claim for compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal and costs associated with methamphetamine testing and decontamination. The matter was scheduled for hearing on 14 March 2025. The landlord advised they would be unable to attend on that date, and the matter was subsequently rescheduled to 09 June 2025.
[ Property manager] has appeared for the landlord. There has been no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord claims that the tenant: i. Failed to leave the property reasonably clean ($1,474.95), ii. Failed leave carpet reasonably clean ($195.50), iii. Failed to remove all rubbish ($1,595.06), iv. Failed to remove security camera ($115.00), v. Failed to return the keys ($313.68), vi. Owes outstanding water rates of $59.43. vii. Is responsible for methamphetamine contamination (excess $2,500.00), viii. Unlawfully used or allowed the property to be used for an unlawful purpose (exemplary damages)
In brackets next to the claims is the compensation sought.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).
During the hearing, the landlord advised that the claim for cleaning was withdrawn.

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

The landlord is claiming $1,598.06 for the removal of rubbish and other items left by the tenant, $195.00 for carpet cleaning, $313.68 to re key the locks, $115.00 to remove a security camera installed by the tenant, and outstanding water rates of $59.43.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and return all keys. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act. Under section 39(3) of the Act, the tenant is liable for all outgoings exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation, which includes water charges based on consumption.
The landlord has produced an end of tenancy inspection report from 18 November 2024, showing the interior and exterior of the property. The property was very unclean, with a significant amount of rubbish. I am satisfied the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The amount claimed includes disposal costs.
On the evidence, I am satisfied that the carpets were not left in a reasonably clean condition. The tenant failed to return the keys provided at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord has provided a water rates invoice for the period 01 August 2024 to 11 November 2024, which I am satisfied remains unpaid by the tenant. The tenant also installed a security camera that was not removed at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved. Methamphetamine contamination and using the property for an unlawful purpose.
The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for methamphetamine contamination, and for using, or allowing the property to be used, for an unlawful purpose.
There was no pre tenancy methamphetamine testing conducted. At the commencement of the tenancy the landlord installed new carpet. On 12 September 2024, a contractor installed a replacement smoke alarm in the hallway. The landlord states that toward the end of the tenancy they had grounds to suspect illicit substance use by the tenant. While conducting cleaning and rubbish removal at the end of the tenancy the landlord stated while at the property, they had felt unwell.
On 03 December 2024, composite methamphetamine testing was conducted. Sixteen samples taken throughout the property were grouped into two composite samples of eight, which returned positive readings for methamphetamine of 8.9 μg/100cm² (“ug”). and 9.4 ug. The smoke alarm concerned was not tested. The report includes photographs of reddish stains on the carpet throughout the property. Although the stained areas were not sampled, the technician has noted in their report that the staining was consistent with methamphetamine manufacture.
On 13 December 2024, the landlord arranged further testing by a different technician. Seventeen sites, including some of the carpet stains, were sampled. The readings were as follows: garage (1.67ug, 0.02ug), Kitchen / living room (3.34ug, 9.31ug, 25.6ug. 8.57ug), laundry / hallway (12.4ug), bathroom (0.38ug), toilet (6.27ug), bedroom 1 (12.2ug), bedroom 2 (20.4ug), bedroom 3 (6.12 ug), kitchen/living room stain (0.14ug), hallway stain (0.18ug), bedroom 2 stain (0.1ug), hallway smoke alarm (0.97ug).
The landlord made an insurance claim which was accepted for testing and decontamination. The landlord is seeking the excess of $2,500.00.
On 25 October 2024, the landlord conducted an inspection where they noted that the property was in a greater state of disarray and more unclean that in previous inspections. The landlord stated they detected a strong smell of cannabis. The landlord took photographs, including one of a large metal spoon resting on a rear element on the stove. The spoon was blackened, which the landlord states is consistent with having been used for “spotting “, a method of consuming cannabis.
On 15 November 2024, shortly before the landlord was granted possession of the property, a neighbour reported seeing through the window a large spoon resting on an element which was glowing red. Concerned that there may be a fire, the landlord called police who entered the property. Police sent the landlord photographs showing what appears to be the same large metal spoon resting on the same element, glowing red. A black handled knife of which the blade is also blackened was on the bench nearby. The photographs also show the property in a very untidy and unclean state. Law – methamphetamine contamination and unlawful use
The New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties,” provides industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and clean-up of methamphetamine contamination in houses. The standard was released on 29 June 2017 and adopts a single level of 1.5 μg. The standard recommends that, at or above this level, ‘high use areas’ of affected properties should be decontaminated.
High use areas are defined as those areas that can be easily accessed and are regularly used by adults and children.
On 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman (The Prime Minister’s then Chief Science Advisor) determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018). The “Gluckman Report” concluded that in the absence of evidence of manufacture, any levels below 15ug were highly unlikely to present adverse effects, and there would be no need for remediation.
The tribunal adopts 15ug as the contamination threshold for damage, a position that has been confirmed by the Court.
To award compensation for damage occurring by contamination the Tribunal must be satisfied that the contamination has occurred during the tenancy and has reached a level deemed to have caused damage
To be satisfied that the contamination concerned has occurred during the tenancy, the Tribunal must be in a position to make an accurate pre tenancy and end of tenancy comparison. In order to make such a comparison the sites tested, pre and end of tenancy, must be the same or proximate.
Section 40(2)(b) of the Act, states a tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. It is unlawful to use methamphetamine or permit any premises to be used for the consumption of methamphetamine and cannabis.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00.
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 Act. Decision Methamphetamine
While it may be likely, based on the evidence, I cannot be satisfied more likely than not that the tenant is responsible for the methamphetamine contamination.
Testing was conducted fifteen and twenty-two days after the end of the tenancy. Prior to testing, the interior of the property and the carpets had been professionally cleaned. The only areas where there may have been a baseline created for subsequent comparison testing were the carpet and the smoke alarm. The readings from the smoke alarm and the four stains were very low. Inadvertent transference or cross contamination cannot be ruled out.
Although the readings in the kitchen / dining room and bedroom two exceeded 15ug, there was no pre tenancy testing of these areas.
The allegations of manufacture are unsupported by testing.
The landlord stated that it was unlikely that the contamination had occurred before the tenancy, describing the previous tenant’s as “solid,” implying that the present tenant was the likely source of the contamination. In the absence of any baseline testing or any actual proof this evidence is speculative. Methamphetamine use may occur in any social or economic demographic, and assumptions based on perceived character are unreliable. Unlawful use
Regarding the allegation that the tenant used or allowed an illicit substance to be used at the property.
The landlord stated that they smelt cannabis during an inspection. The landlord is experienced, and I am satisfied can identify the smell of cannabis.
The photographs taken at the inspection, and by the police, show utensils commonly used for the consumption of cannabis on the stove and bench nearby.
Setting aside the alleged methamphetamine use, on the evidence I am satisfied to the required standard that the tenant has more likely than not used cannabis, which is presently an offence against the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Regarding exemplary damages. The tenant has more likely than not intentionally smoked cannabis at the property. There is, however, no evidence that doing so has caused damage or affected the landlord’s ability to re let the property. While smoking cannabis remains an offence against the Misuse of Drugs Act, it is now generally viewed as a lesser illicit substance, causing less harm and damage than methamphetamine. While using a property to deal drugs may result in a stigma being attached to the property, which may then affect re letting, smoking cannabis is unlikely to result in the same stigma. Having considered these, and the other factors in section 109(3) of the Act, I award the landlord exemplary damages of $250.00.
On 28 November 2024, the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy for the disposal of goods left by the tenant. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. Costs
Because [ suppressed landlord] have substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name Suppression
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 Act (the “Act”) provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
The landlord has been substantially successful, seeks and is granted name suppression.
The landlord states that the tenant was a single parent with three young children. The evidence suggests they were under significant mental strain at the time. While the facts and reasoning in this matter may be in the public interest, in the circumstances, I do not consider the interest necessarily extends to identifying the tenant. Accordingly, the Tribunal also orders suppression of the tenant’s name.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5119868 — net $195.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application [ suppressed] dated [ suppressed	$27.00	Previous order application [ suppressed] dated [ suppressed
Rubbish removal	$1,595.06	Rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning	$195.00	Carpet Cleaning
Water rates	$59.43	Water rates
Lock/key replacement	$313.68	Lock/key replacement
Remove security camera	$115.00	Remove security camera
Exemplary damages using the property for unlawful purpose	$250.00	Exemplary damages using the property for unlawful purpose
Net award	$195.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$195.17

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenant must pay the landlord $195.17 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on [ suppressed] under application [ suppressed].
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,332.17 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The tenancy commenced on 28 October 2022. On 13 November 2024, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy effective 17 November 2024. The termination was the result of the tenant failing to remedy a 14-day breach notice to maintain the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Following the end of the tenancy the landlord filed an application seeking orders for disposal of goods left at the property.
The Tribunal found the goods to have little or no value and on [ suppressed] ordered the landlord to deliver any personal documents to the police, and then to dispose of any other items as they saw fit.
On 23 December 2024, the landlord filed a claim for compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal and costs associated with methamphetamine testing and decontamination. The matter was scheduled for hearing on 14 March 2025. The landlord advised they would be unable to attend on that date, and the matter was subsequently rescheduled to 09 June 2025.
[ Property manager] has appeared for the landlord. There has been no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord claims that the tenant: i. Failed to leave the property reasonably clean ($1,474.95), ii. Failed leave carpet reasonably clean ($195.50), iii. Failed to remove all rubbish ($1,595.06), iv. Failed to remove security camera ($115.00), v. Failed to return the keys ($313.68), vi. Owes outstanding water rates of $59.43. vii. Is responsible for methamphetamine contamination (excess $2,500.00), viii. Unlawfully used or allowed the property to be used for an unlawful purpose (exemplary damages)
In brackets next to the claims is the compensation sought.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).
During the hearing, the landlord advised that the claim for cleaning was withdrawn.

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

The landlord is claiming $1,598.06 for the removal of rubbish and other items left by the tenant, $195.00 for carpet cleaning, $313.68 to re key the locks, $115.00 to remove a security camera installed by the tenant, and outstanding water rates of $59.43.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, and return all keys. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act. Under section 39(3) of the Act, the tenant is liable for all outgoings exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation, which includes water charges based on consumption.
The landlord has produced an end of tenancy inspection report from 18 November 2024, showing the interior and exterior of the property. The property was very unclean, with a significant amount of rubbish. I am satisfied the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The amount claimed includes disposal costs.
On the evidence, I am satisfied that the carpets were not left in a reasonably clean condition. The tenant failed to return the keys provided at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord has provided a water rates invoice for the period 01 August 2024 to 11 November 2024, which I am satisfied remains unpaid by the tenant. The tenant also installed a security camera that was not removed at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved. Methamphetamine contamination and using the property for an unlawful purpose.
The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for methamphetamine contamination, and for using, or allowing the property to be used, for an unlawful purpose.
There was no pre tenancy methamphetamine testing conducted. At the commencement of the tenancy the landlord installed new carpet. On 12 September 2024, a contractor installed a replacement smoke alarm in the hallway. The landlord states that toward the end of the tenancy they had grounds to suspect illicit substance use by the tenant. While conducting cleaning and rubbish removal at the end of the tenancy the landlord stated while at the property, they had felt unwell.
On 03 December 2024, composite methamphetamine testing was conducted. Sixteen samples taken throughout the property were grouped into two composite samples of eight, which returned positive readings for methamphetamine of 8.9 μg/100cm² (“ug”). and 9.4 ug. The smoke alarm concerned was not tested. The report includes photographs of reddish stains on the carpet throughout the property. Although the stained areas were not sampled, the technician has noted in their report that the staining was consistent with methamphetamine manufacture.
On 13 December 2024, the landlord arranged further testing by a different technician. Seventeen sites, including some of the carpet stains, were sampled. The readings were as follows: garage (1.67ug, 0.02ug), Kitchen / living room (3.34ug, 9.31ug, 25.6ug. 8.57ug), laundry / hallway (12.4ug), bathroom (0.38ug), toilet (6.27ug), bedroom 1 (12.2ug), bedroom 2 (20.4ug), bedroom 3 (6.12 ug), kitchen/living room stain (0.14ug), hallway stain (0.18ug), bedroom 2 stain (0.1ug), hallway smoke alarm (0.97ug).
The landlord made an insurance claim which was accepted for testing and decontamination. The landlord is seeking the excess of $2,500.00.
On 25 October 2024, the landlord conducted an inspection where they noted that the property was in a greater state of disarray and more unclean that in previous inspections. The landlord stated they detected a strong smell of cannabis. The landlord took photographs, including one of a large metal spoon resting on a rear element on the stove. The spoon was blackened, which the landlord states is consistent with having been used for “spotting “, a method of consuming cannabis.
On 15 November 2024, shortly before the landlord was granted possession of the property, a neighbour reported seeing through the window a large spoon resting on an element which was glowing red. Concerned that there may be a fire, the landlord called police who entered the property. Police sent the landlord photographs showing what appears to be the same large metal spoon resting on the same element, glowing red. A black handled knife of which the blade is also blackened was on the bench nearby. The photographs also show the property in a very untidy and unclean state. Law – methamphetamine contamination and unlawful use
The New Zealand Standard 8510:2017 “Testing and decontamination of methamphetamine-contaminated properties,” provides industry guidance on good practice methods in the testing and clean-up of methamphetamine contamination in houses. The standard was released on 29 June 2017 and adopts a single level of 1.5 μg. The standard recommends that, at or above this level, ‘high use areas’ of affected properties should be decontaminated.
High use areas are defined as those areas that can be easily accessed and are regularly used by adults and children.
On 29 May 2018, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman (The Prime Minister’s then Chief Science Advisor) determined that there was little evidence supporting health risks from exposure to residue from methamphetamine consumption (Report entitled ‘Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards’, 29 May 2018). The “Gluckman Report” concluded that in the absence of evidence of manufacture, any levels below 15ug were highly unlikely to present adverse effects, and there would be no need for remediation.
The tribunal adopts 15ug as the contamination threshold for damage, a position that has been confirmed by the Court.
To award compensation for damage occurring by contamination the Tribunal must be satisfied that the contamination has occurred during the tenancy and has reached a level deemed to have caused damage
To be satisfied that the contamination concerned has occurred during the tenancy, the Tribunal must be in a position to make an accurate pre tenancy and end of tenancy comparison. In order to make such a comparison the sites tested, pre and end of tenancy, must be the same or proximate.
Section 40(2)(b) of the Act, states a tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. It is unlawful to use methamphetamine or permit any premises to be used for the consumption of methamphetamine and cannabis.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00.
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 Act. Decision Methamphetamine
While it may be likely, based on the evidence, I cannot be satisfied more likely than not that the tenant is responsible for the methamphetamine contamination.
Testing was conducted fifteen and twenty-two days after the end of the tenancy. Prior to testing, the interior of the property and the carpets had been professionally cleaned. The only areas where there may have been a baseline created for subsequent comparison testing were the carpet and the smoke alarm. The readings from the smoke alarm and the four stains were very low. Inadvertent transference or cross contamination cannot be ruled out.
Although the readings in the kitchen / dining room and bedroom two exceeded 15ug, there was no pre tenancy testing of these areas.
The allegations of manufacture are unsupported by testing.
The landlord stated that it was unlikely that the contamination had occurred before the tenancy, describing the previous tenant’s as “solid,” implying that the present tenant was the likely source of the contamination. In the absence of any baseline testing or any actual proof this evidence is speculative. Methamphetamine use may occur in any social or economic demographic, and assumptions based on perceived character are unreliable. Unlawful use
Regarding the allegation that the tenant used or allowed an illicit substance to be used at the property.
The landlord stated that they smelt cannabis during an inspection. The landlord is experienced, and I am satisfied can identify the smell of cannabis.
The photographs taken at the inspection, and by the police, show utensils commonly used for the consumption of cannabis on the stove and bench nearby.
Setting aside the alleged methamphetamine use, on the evidence I am satisfied to the required standard that the tenant has more likely than not used cannabis, which is presently an offence against the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Regarding exemplary damages. The tenant has more likely than not intentionally smoked cannabis at the property. There is, however, no evidence that doing so has caused damage or affected the landlord’s ability to re let the property. While smoking cannabis remains an offence against the Misuse of Drugs Act, it is now generally viewed as a lesser illicit substance, causing less harm and damage than methamphetamine. While using a property to deal drugs may result in a stigma being attached to the property, which may then affect re letting, smoking cannabis is unlikely to result in the same stigma. Having considered these, and the other factors in section 109(3) of the Act, I award the landlord exemplary damages of $250.00.
On 28 November 2024, the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy for the disposal of goods left by the tenant. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. Costs
Because [ suppressed landlord] have substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name Suppression
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 Act (the “Act”) provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
The landlord has been substantially successful, seeks and is granted name suppression.
The landlord states that the tenant was a single parent with three young children. The evidence suggests they were under significant mental strain at the time. While the facts and reasoning in this matter may be in the public interest, in the circumstances, I do not consider the interest necessarily extends to identifying the tenant. Accordingly, the Tribunal also orders suppression of the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5119868 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5119868 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions