What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5204773 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 5204773?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $360.34 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,600.00 awarded to landlord; Walls And Door: $640.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $345.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5204773?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5204773?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12406816-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5204773 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 5204773?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $360.34 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,600.00 awarded to landlord; Walls And Door: $640.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $345.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5204773?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5204773?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12406816-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

198 Mahoe Street, Melville, Hamilton 3206 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5204773 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

198 Mahoe Street, Melville, Hamilton 3206 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5204773 — Rent arrears | 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 5204773 — net $3,912.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 21 February 2025	$4,600.00	Rent arrears (to 21 February 2025
Rubbish removal	$345.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$360.34	Lock/key replacement
Repair to waste disposal unit	$300.00	Repair to waste disposal unit
Repairs: Walls and door	$640.00	Repairs: Walls and door
Replacing carpet and vinyl	$1,000.00	Replacing carpet and vinyl
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,912.34
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,912.34

Claims and awards for application 5204773 — net $3,912.34 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears (to 21 February 2025

Amount: $4,600.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears (to 21 February 2025

Rubbish removal

Amount: $345.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $360.34
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Repair to waste disposal unit

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repair to waste disposal unit

Repairs: Walls and door

Amount: $640.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Walls and door

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Ruhia Te Riritawhai LEEF must pay [The landlord/s] $3,912.34 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,360.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

[Property Managers], Property Managers, appeared for the landlord. The tenant did not appear. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.
The tenant entered into a tenancy agreement with the landlord sometime in 2023. On 21 October 2024, the landlord engaged the Property Managers to take over the management of the property.
On 21 October 2024, the tenant entered into a new fixed term tenancy agreement which was due to expire on 19 October 2025.
On 21 February 2025, the parties agreed to an early termination of the fixed term as the tenant was struggling to meet their rent obligations.
On 19 March 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
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.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 21 February 2025. The landlord provided up to date rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy totalled $4,600.00. The Tribunal notes the tenant’s last rent payment was made on 22 January 2025. The amount claimed is ordered.

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 Act. Rubbish removal
The landlord is claiming $345.00 for rubbish removal costs after hiring a skip bin to remove rubbish left at the property by the tenant.
The landlord provided pre-tenancy photographs showing the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. The photographs show the property is free of rubbish but did contain some cleaning products and a few tools.
The landlord provided post tenancy inspection photographs. These photographs show the tenant left furniture, bedding, clothing, cookware, toys, and rubbish in black sacks at the property at the end of the tenancy.
Having heard from the landlord and reviewing all the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant failed to remove all rubbish from the property at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered. Lock replacement
The landlord is claiming $360.34 for lock replacements after the tenant failed to return the keys at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided an invoice totalling $136.34, the cost of replacing the lock on the upstairs exterior door.
The landlord seeks $224.00 to replace the lock on the downstairs exterior door.
Having heard from the landlord and reviewing all the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant failed to return the keys at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered.

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 of the Act.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Repairs to waste disposal unit and reattaching the dishwasher waste pipe.
The landlord is seeking $300.00 for fixing the waste disposal unit and reattaching the dishwasher waste pipe and provided an invoice for the amount sought.
The landlord’s evidence was that the waste disposal unit was working at the commencement of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy the unit was not working and was found to be blocked and clogged with glass, plastic, and beer bottle tops.
The landlord stated that at the end of the tenancy they discovered the dishwasher waste pipe had been disconnected and needed to be reattached before the dishwasher could be used.
The Tribunal considers that the material found in the waste disposal unit, preventing it from working, was caused by the tenant’s misuse, and the disconnection of the dishwasher waste pipe was caused by the tenant’s actions. The Tribunal finds that the tenant’s are liable for the repair costs and the amount claimed is awarded. Repairs to the walls and door
The landlord seeks compensation for damage to the property including: a. A large hole in a bedroom door beneath the window. b. A large hole in a bedroom wall, exposing the insulation, next to a doorway. c. Damage to the wall above the kitchen bench top. d. Various holes in the walls in the garage. e. A hole in the downstairs door. f. Holes in the wall in the hallway.
The landlord provided a quote with the application totalling $10,925.00 for repairs to the holes in the gib board and plastering, repainting of the interior of the property, replacement of two doors, windows and door frame painting, and repairs to the floor.
At the hearing, the landlord provided an invoice for the work completed and sought compensation of $400.00 to repair the damage and $240.00 for painting. The landlord states that after the walls were repaired, they decided to repaint the interior of the property and now seeks $5,000.00 compensation from the tenant for their labour and material costs.
Having heard from the landlord and reviewing all the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the damage to the property, which is more than fair wear and tear. The amount of $640.00 is awarded.
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 Tribunal declines to award the landlord the $5,000.00 sought for the total repaint of the interior. The photographs of the property at the commencement of the tenancy show general wear and tear of the paint work, the landlord was unable to advise when the property was most recently refurbished and there was no evidence to support the amount claimed. Carpet and vinyl replacement
The landlord seeks $7,367.00 to replace the carpet and vinyl in the property and provided an invoice for the amount sought.
The pre-tenancy photographs show the vinyl flooring in the kitchen had bubbled away from the floor as well as general signs of wear and tear.
The post tenancy photographs of the vinyl flooring show additional bubbling, particularly in front of the ranch slider which was in the sun, and an area in the kitchen where the vinyl has cracked, and the floor had sunken in.
The pre-tenancy photographs (which were limited in number) show the condition of the carpet at the commencement of the tenancy as worn with some staining.
The end of tenancy photographs showed the carpet was left unvacuumed with evidence of additional wear and tear and staining.
The landlord told the Tribunal the main reason for replacing the carpet was due to the smell. The landlord said the tenant’s large dog had lived inside the property and had been allowed to urinate on the carpet. The landlord had unsuccessfully attempted to clean the carpet themselves and did not seek the assistance of a professional carpet cleaner.
The landlord was unable to provide the Tribunal with any information about the age or type of carpet at the property.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied that the tenant’s caused damage to the vinyl beyond general wear and tear. However, the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenants caused additional staining to the carpet that was more than fair wear and tear.
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. At the commencement of the tenancy the carpet was showing signs of wear and tear and was stained although had inherent value as a floor covering. On that basis the Tribunal awards $1,000.00 for the carpet replacement. Costs
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Section 95A of 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.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

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 5204773 — net $3,912.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 21 February 2025	$4,600.00	Rent arrears (to 21 February 2025
Rubbish removal	$345.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$360.34	Lock/key replacement
Repair to waste disposal unit	$300.00	Repair to waste disposal unit
Repairs: Walls and door	$640.00	Repairs: Walls and door
Replacing carpet and vinyl	$1,000.00	Replacing carpet and vinyl
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,912.34
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,912.34

Claims and awards for application 5204773 — net $3,912.34 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears (to 21 February 2025

Amount: $4,600.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears (to 21 February 2025

Rubbish removal

Amount: $345.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $360.34
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Repair to waste disposal unit

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repair to waste disposal unit

Repairs: Walls and door

Amount: $640.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Walls and door

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Ruhia Te Riritawhai LEEF must pay [The landlord/s] $3,912.34 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,360.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

[Property Managers], Property Managers, appeared for the landlord. The tenant did not appear. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.
The tenant entered into a tenancy agreement with the landlord sometime in 2023. On 21 October 2024, the landlord engaged the Property Managers to take over the management of the property.
On 21 October 2024, the tenant entered into a new fixed term tenancy agreement which was due to expire on 19 October 2025.
On 21 February 2025, the parties agreed to an early termination of the fixed term as the tenant was struggling to meet their rent obligations.
On 19 March 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
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.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 21 February 2025. The landlord provided up to date rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy totalled $4,600.00. The Tribunal notes the tenant’s last rent payment was made on 22 January 2025. The amount claimed is ordered.

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 Act. Rubbish removal
The landlord is claiming $345.00 for rubbish removal costs after hiring a skip bin to remove rubbish left at the property by the tenant.
The landlord provided pre-tenancy photographs showing the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. The photographs show the property is free of rubbish but did contain some cleaning products and a few tools.
The landlord provided post tenancy inspection photographs. These photographs show the tenant left furniture, bedding, clothing, cookware, toys, and rubbish in black sacks at the property at the end of the tenancy.
Having heard from the landlord and reviewing all the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant failed to remove all rubbish from the property at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered. Lock replacement
The landlord is claiming $360.34 for lock replacements after the tenant failed to return the keys at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided an invoice totalling $136.34, the cost of replacing the lock on the upstairs exterior door.
The landlord seeks $224.00 to replace the lock on the downstairs exterior door.
Having heard from the landlord and reviewing all the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant failed to return the keys at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered.

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 of the Act.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Repairs to waste disposal unit and reattaching the dishwasher waste pipe.
The landlord is seeking $300.00 for fixing the waste disposal unit and reattaching the dishwasher waste pipe and provided an invoice for the amount sought.
The landlord’s evidence was that the waste disposal unit was working at the commencement of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy the unit was not working and was found to be blocked and clogged with glass, plastic, and beer bottle tops.
The landlord stated that at the end of the tenancy they discovered the dishwasher waste pipe had been disconnected and needed to be reattached before the dishwasher could be used.
The Tribunal considers that the material found in the waste disposal unit, preventing it from working, was caused by the tenant’s misuse, and the disconnection of the dishwasher waste pipe was caused by the tenant’s actions. The Tribunal finds that the tenant’s are liable for the repair costs and the amount claimed is awarded. Repairs to the walls and door
The landlord seeks compensation for damage to the property including: a. A large hole in a bedroom door beneath the window. b. A large hole in a bedroom wall, exposing the insulation, next to a doorway. c. Damage to the wall above the kitchen bench top. d. Various holes in the walls in the garage. e. A hole in the downstairs door. f. Holes in the wall in the hallway.
The landlord provided a quote with the application totalling $10,925.00 for repairs to the holes in the gib board and plastering, repainting of the interior of the property, replacement of two doors, windows and door frame painting, and repairs to the floor.
At the hearing, the landlord provided an invoice for the work completed and sought compensation of $400.00 to repair the damage and $240.00 for painting. The landlord states that after the walls were repaired, they decided to repaint the interior of the property and now seeks $5,000.00 compensation from the tenant for their labour and material costs.
Having heard from the landlord and reviewing all the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the damage to the property, which is more than fair wear and tear. The amount of $640.00 is awarded.
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 Tribunal declines to award the landlord the $5,000.00 sought for the total repaint of the interior. The photographs of the property at the commencement of the tenancy show general wear and tear of the paint work, the landlord was unable to advise when the property was most recently refurbished and there was no evidence to support the amount claimed. Carpet and vinyl replacement
The landlord seeks $7,367.00 to replace the carpet and vinyl in the property and provided an invoice for the amount sought.
The pre-tenancy photographs show the vinyl flooring in the kitchen had bubbled away from the floor as well as general signs of wear and tear.
The post tenancy photographs of the vinyl flooring show additional bubbling, particularly in front of the ranch slider which was in the sun, and an area in the kitchen where the vinyl has cracked, and the floor had sunken in.
The pre-tenancy photographs (which were limited in number) show the condition of the carpet at the commencement of the tenancy as worn with some staining.
The end of tenancy photographs showed the carpet was left unvacuumed with evidence of additional wear and tear and staining.
The landlord told the Tribunal the main reason for replacing the carpet was due to the smell. The landlord said the tenant’s large dog had lived inside the property and had been allowed to urinate on the carpet. The landlord had unsuccessfully attempted to clean the carpet themselves and did not seek the assistance of a professional carpet cleaner.
The landlord was unable to provide the Tribunal with any information about the age or type of carpet at the property.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied that the tenant’s caused damage to the vinyl beyond general wear and tear. However, the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenants caused additional staining to the carpet that was more than fair wear and tear.
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. At the commencement of the tenancy the carpet was showing signs of wear and tear and was stained although had inherent value as a floor covering. On that basis the Tribunal awards $1,000.00 for the carpet replacement. Costs
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Section 95A of 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.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5204773 — Rent arrears at 198 Mahoe Street, Melville, Hamilton 3206

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5204773 — Rent arrears at 198 Mahoe Street, Melville, Hamilton 3206

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