What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5212592 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 5212592?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $135.70 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $258.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,414.19 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5212592?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5212592?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12198785-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5212592 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 5212592?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $135.70 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $258.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,414.19 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5212592?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5212592?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12198785-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5212592 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5212592 — 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 5212592 — net $235.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 09 March 2025	$2,414.19	Rent arrears to 09 March 2025
Repairs to two doors	$135.70	Repairs to two doors
Window repairs	$258.75	Window repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$235.64
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$235.64

Claims and awards for application 5212592 — net $235.64 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 09 March 2025

Amount: $2,414.19
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 09 March 2025

Repairs to two doors

Amount: $135.70
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs to two doors

Window repairs

Amount: $258.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $235.64

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $235.64

Dismissed claims

This Door

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Martha Jankowitz and Chelsea Jankowitz must pay [The landlord/s] $235.64 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The landlords’ application for compensation for damage to: a wall; a door; and the garage door lock are dismissed.

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. The hearing took place on 17 June 2025 via telephone.
[The landlord’s representative/s], representative of the landlord’s agent, attended the hearing for the landlord. Chelsea Jankowitz attended the hearing. Martha Jankowitz did not attend the hearing. At the start of the hearing, Ms C Jankowitz said that was not authorised to speak for Ms M Jankowitz and that Ms M Jankowitz was unable to attend the hearing because she was overseas. Ms C Jankowitz said Ms M Jankowitz had asked her to apply for the hearing to be adjourned to a time when she had returned.
I am satisfied that the Ms M Jankowitz had been served notice of the hearing in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). I declined the request for the hearing to be adjourned. The parties were given over two months’ notice of the hearing. If Ms M Jankowitz wished for the hearing to be adjourned, she should have applied in advance of the hearing along with the reason why she was requesting an adjournment and evidence to support that application.
The hearing proceeded in Ms M Jankowitz’s absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Towards the end of the hearing, Ms C Jankowitz said that she had claims she wished to pursue against the landlord. On 17 June 2025, the Tribunal issued an Order that the hearing was adjourned to allow Ms C Jankowitz to lodge an application with the Tribunal. Ms C Jankowitz was given until 26 June 2025 to lodge her application and was advised that if she did not do so by that date the hearing would be treated as complete and the final order issued by the Tribunal.
Ms C Jankowitz did not lodge an application by 26 June 2025. The hearing is treated as complete. Relevant legal considerations:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The applicant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

When did the tenancy end?

The tenancy was a periodic tenancy. Clause 19(b) of the tenancy agreement provides that the tenant could terminate the tenancy by giving 28 days’ written notice. This is consistent with section 51(2B) of the of the RTA which, up to and including 29 January 2025, provided that where the tenancy was a periodic tenancy, the tenant may terminate on 28 days’ written notice.
On and from 30 January 2025, section 51 of the RTA was amended so that a where the tenant was a periodic tenancy, the tenant only had to provide 21 days’ written notice.
On 27 January 2025, Ms M Jankowitz sent an email to the landlord’s agent saying that she was giving two weeks’ notice and that she believed Ms C Jankowitz wished to remain in the tenancy.
The following day, the landlord’s agent replied saying that the notice period was 28 days and, as the tenancy was a joint tenancy, notice from one tenant would end the tenancy for both tenants.
From the documentary evidence, it appears that Ms C Jankowitz then contacted the landlord’s agent saying that the notice date should be the date Ms M Jankowitz gave notice. This appears to have been accepted by the agent as it was agreed that the last day of the tenancy would be 25 February 2025.
On 26 February 2025, the agent sent an email to the tenant advising that she was expecting the keys to be returned that morning and that she would have to “... add on a extra day if we do not get the keys today”.
On 27 February 2025, Ms C Jankowitz sent an email to the landlord’s agent saying that she was in the process of moving out and that she believed she would be moved out by Wednesday, 05 March 2025 at the latest.
The landlord said that on 05 March 2025, an agent visited the premises for the purposes of carrying out the end of tenancy inspection. The agent said that Ms M Jankowitz was present. The landlord said that the premises was not vacant and that the cleaning had not been completed. She said it was agreed with Ms M Jankowitz that the tenant would retain the keys to clean the premises and continue moving out.
There was further correspondence on 7 March regarding return of the keys. Ms M Jankowitz said she would be going in the weekend to clean and that she would return the keys on Monday, 10 March 2025.
The landlord says the tenancy ended on 09 March 2025. Ms C Jankowitz says they thought they were being given permission to enter the premises to clean not to extend the tenancy past 05 March 2025.
Section 60(1) of the RTA provides: Where a tenant remains in occupation of the premises after the tenancy has terminated or has been terminated, all the obligations of the tenant shall continue in force as if the tenancy were still subsisting until such time as the tenant ceases to occupy the premises.
The term “possession” is not defined in the RTA. The common law definition of “possession” means the right to enter and occupy the land and “parting with possession” means, broadly, being ousted or from legal possession by complete exclusion from the premises. (See: Lam Kee Ying Sdn Bhd v Lam Shes Tong [1974] 3 All ER 137 (PC) at 143, citing Stening v Abrahams [1931] 1 Ch 470 at 473, 474.)
I find that the tenant was in possession of the premises until 09 March 2025. Therefore, the tenancy terminated on that date.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 09 March 2025. The landlord provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears to 09 March 2025 is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provide that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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 where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. (See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.)
The landlord claims the following damage was done during the tenancy: damage to the hallway wall; damage to three doors; a broken window; and damage to the garage door lock.
The tenancy agreement provides that the landlord had insurance for the premises with a $500 excess. The value of each claim is less than the excess.
The landlord has provided photographs taken from the start of the tenancy and photographs from the end of the tenancy. The landlord has also provided an invoice to support the sums claimed. During the hearing, the tenant questioned the validity of the pre-tenancy photographs. However, she did not offer any evidence to support the claim that the pre-tenancy photographs did not represent the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
Hole in the wall: The landlord says that at the end of the tenancy there was a hole which cost $135.70 (including GST) to repair. The tenant says there was a patch on the wall at the start of the tenancy which was soft to touch. The photographs show that there was not a hole in the wall at the start of the tenancy but there was at the end of the tenancy. I accept that the damage occurred during the tenancy. However, I also accept the tenant’s evidence that there was some damage to the wall at the start of the tenancy which is likely to have resulted in the damage. This claim is dismissed.
Damage to door 1: The landlord is claiming $514.05 for repairs to three doors. Ms C Jankowski says that one of the doors was damaged when she tripped and fell into the door. The landlord does not accept this and says the damage was done by an incident with a water cooler. Ms C Jankowski denied this and provided a detail account of the fall. I accept Ms C Jankowski evidence that she fell and damaged the door. I find that the damage to the door was accidental. The claim for this door is dismissed.
Damage to door 2. The landlord says that there was a mark on the door which the tenant appears to have tried to fix but has instead made it worse. Ms C Jankowski accepts that they did try to fix the mark on the door and says they made it better than before.
Damage to door 3. Ms C Jankowski accepts that the damage caused to the other door but says that it had marks on it at the start of the tenancy.
I find that the damage to the two doors was caused during the tenancy. Having reviewed the photographs provided, I find that there was already some damage to both doors. The landlord is claiming $514.05 (including GST) for the damage to 3 doors. This amounts to $171.35 (including GST) for each door. For two doors this is $342.70 (including GST). I award $239.89 for the doors considering the state of the doors at the start of the tenancy.
Broken window: The landlord is claiming for a broken toilet window. Ms C Jankowski says the window was damaged during the tenancy in a storm. Ms C Jankowski says the latch did not work and the window was broken when blew open during storm. Ms C Jankowski said she advised the landlord of this but did not provide any evidence (i.e. text or email messages) to support this. As the damage occurred during the tenancy, Ms C Jankowski has the burden to prove that it was not caused intentionally or carelessly. Ms C Jankowski has not disproved liability for this claim. This claim is upheld, and I award the sum claimed: $258.75 (including GST).
The landlord is claiming for damage to the garage door lock which it says were caused during the tenancy. Ms C Jankowski denies that the damage was caused during the tenancy. The pre-tenancy photographs do not show if the door had the damage at the start of the tenancy or not. It is the landlord who has the burden to prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy. I am not satisfied that this damage was caused during the tenancy. This claim is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression:
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee and granted the application for suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

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 5212592 — net $235.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 09 March 2025	$2,414.19	Rent arrears to 09 March 2025
Repairs to two doors	$135.70	Repairs to two doors
Window repairs	$258.75	Window repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$235.64
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$235.64

Claims and awards for application 5212592 — net $235.64 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 09 March 2025

Amount: $2,414.19
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 09 March 2025

Repairs to two doors

Amount: $135.70
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs to two doors

Window repairs

Amount: $258.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $235.64

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $235.64

Dismissed claims

This Door

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Martha Jankowitz and Chelsea Jankowitz must pay [The landlord/s] $235.64 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The landlords’ application for compensation for damage to: a wall; a door; and the garage door lock are dismissed.

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. The hearing took place on 17 June 2025 via telephone.
[The landlord’s representative/s], representative of the landlord’s agent, attended the hearing for the landlord. Chelsea Jankowitz attended the hearing. Martha Jankowitz did not attend the hearing. At the start of the hearing, Ms C Jankowitz said that was not authorised to speak for Ms M Jankowitz and that Ms M Jankowitz was unable to attend the hearing because she was overseas. Ms C Jankowitz said Ms M Jankowitz had asked her to apply for the hearing to be adjourned to a time when she had returned.
I am satisfied that the Ms M Jankowitz had been served notice of the hearing in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). I declined the request for the hearing to be adjourned. The parties were given over two months’ notice of the hearing. If Ms M Jankowitz wished for the hearing to be adjourned, she should have applied in advance of the hearing along with the reason why she was requesting an adjournment and evidence to support that application.
The hearing proceeded in Ms M Jankowitz’s absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Towards the end of the hearing, Ms C Jankowitz said that she had claims she wished to pursue against the landlord. On 17 June 2025, the Tribunal issued an Order that the hearing was adjourned to allow Ms C Jankowitz to lodge an application with the Tribunal. Ms C Jankowitz was given until 26 June 2025 to lodge her application and was advised that if she did not do so by that date the hearing would be treated as complete and the final order issued by the Tribunal.
Ms C Jankowitz did not lodge an application by 26 June 2025. The hearing is treated as complete. Relevant legal considerations:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The applicant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

When did the tenancy end?

The tenancy was a periodic tenancy. Clause 19(b) of the tenancy agreement provides that the tenant could terminate the tenancy by giving 28 days’ written notice. This is consistent with section 51(2B) of the of the RTA which, up to and including 29 January 2025, provided that where the tenancy was a periodic tenancy, the tenant may terminate on 28 days’ written notice.
On and from 30 January 2025, section 51 of the RTA was amended so that a where the tenant was a periodic tenancy, the tenant only had to provide 21 days’ written notice.
On 27 January 2025, Ms M Jankowitz sent an email to the landlord’s agent saying that she was giving two weeks’ notice and that she believed Ms C Jankowitz wished to remain in the tenancy.
The following day, the landlord’s agent replied saying that the notice period was 28 days and, as the tenancy was a joint tenancy, notice from one tenant would end the tenancy for both tenants.
From the documentary evidence, it appears that Ms C Jankowitz then contacted the landlord’s agent saying that the notice date should be the date Ms M Jankowitz gave notice. This appears to have been accepted by the agent as it was agreed that the last day of the tenancy would be 25 February 2025.
On 26 February 2025, the agent sent an email to the tenant advising that she was expecting the keys to be returned that morning and that she would have to “... add on a extra day if we do not get the keys today”.
On 27 February 2025, Ms C Jankowitz sent an email to the landlord’s agent saying that she was in the process of moving out and that she believed she would be moved out by Wednesday, 05 March 2025 at the latest.
The landlord said that on 05 March 2025, an agent visited the premises for the purposes of carrying out the end of tenancy inspection. The agent said that Ms M Jankowitz was present. The landlord said that the premises was not vacant and that the cleaning had not been completed. She said it was agreed with Ms M Jankowitz that the tenant would retain the keys to clean the premises and continue moving out.
There was further correspondence on 7 March regarding return of the keys. Ms M Jankowitz said she would be going in the weekend to clean and that she would return the keys on Monday, 10 March 2025.
The landlord says the tenancy ended on 09 March 2025. Ms C Jankowitz says they thought they were being given permission to enter the premises to clean not to extend the tenancy past 05 March 2025.
Section 60(1) of the RTA provides: Where a tenant remains in occupation of the premises after the tenancy has terminated or has been terminated, all the obligations of the tenant shall continue in force as if the tenancy were still subsisting until such time as the tenant ceases to occupy the premises.
The term “possession” is not defined in the RTA. The common law definition of “possession” means the right to enter and occupy the land and “parting with possession” means, broadly, being ousted or from legal possession by complete exclusion from the premises. (See: Lam Kee Ying Sdn Bhd v Lam Shes Tong [1974] 3 All ER 137 (PC) at 143, citing Stening v Abrahams [1931] 1 Ch 470 at 473, 474.)
I find that the tenant was in possession of the premises until 09 March 2025. Therefore, the tenancy terminated on that date.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 09 March 2025. The landlord provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears to 09 March 2025 is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provide that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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 where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. (See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.)
The landlord claims the following damage was done during the tenancy: damage to the hallway wall; damage to three doors; a broken window; and damage to the garage door lock.
The tenancy agreement provides that the landlord had insurance for the premises with a $500 excess. The value of each claim is less than the excess.
The landlord has provided photographs taken from the start of the tenancy and photographs from the end of the tenancy. The landlord has also provided an invoice to support the sums claimed. During the hearing, the tenant questioned the validity of the pre-tenancy photographs. However, she did not offer any evidence to support the claim that the pre-tenancy photographs did not represent the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
Hole in the wall: The landlord says that at the end of the tenancy there was a hole which cost $135.70 (including GST) to repair. The tenant says there was a patch on the wall at the start of the tenancy which was soft to touch. The photographs show that there was not a hole in the wall at the start of the tenancy but there was at the end of the tenancy. I accept that the damage occurred during the tenancy. However, I also accept the tenant’s evidence that there was some damage to the wall at the start of the tenancy which is likely to have resulted in the damage. This claim is dismissed.
Damage to door 1: The landlord is claiming $514.05 for repairs to three doors. Ms C Jankowski says that one of the doors was damaged when she tripped and fell into the door. The landlord does not accept this and says the damage was done by an incident with a water cooler. Ms C Jankowski denied this and provided a detail account of the fall. I accept Ms C Jankowski evidence that she fell and damaged the door. I find that the damage to the door was accidental. The claim for this door is dismissed.
Damage to door 2. The landlord says that there was a mark on the door which the tenant appears to have tried to fix but has instead made it worse. Ms C Jankowski accepts that they did try to fix the mark on the door and says they made it better than before.
Damage to door 3. Ms C Jankowski accepts that the damage caused to the other door but says that it had marks on it at the start of the tenancy.
I find that the damage to the two doors was caused during the tenancy. Having reviewed the photographs provided, I find that there was already some damage to both doors. The landlord is claiming $514.05 (including GST) for the damage to 3 doors. This amounts to $171.35 (including GST) for each door. For two doors this is $342.70 (including GST). I award $239.89 for the doors considering the state of the doors at the start of the tenancy.
Broken window: The landlord is claiming for a broken toilet window. Ms C Jankowski says the window was damaged during the tenancy in a storm. Ms C Jankowski says the latch did not work and the window was broken when blew open during storm. Ms C Jankowski said she advised the landlord of this but did not provide any evidence (i.e. text or email messages) to support this. As the damage occurred during the tenancy, Ms C Jankowski has the burden to prove that it was not caused intentionally or carelessly. Ms C Jankowski has not disproved liability for this claim. This claim is upheld, and I award the sum claimed: $258.75 (including GST).
The landlord is claiming for damage to the garage door lock which it says were caused during the tenancy. Ms C Jankowski denies that the damage was caused during the tenancy. The pre-tenancy photographs do not show if the door had the damage at the start of the tenancy or not. It is the landlord who has the burden to prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy. I am not satisfied that this damage was caused during the tenancy. This claim is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression:
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee and granted the application for suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5212592 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5212592 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

When did the tenancy end?

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

When did the tenancy end?

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions