What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5220193 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $9,546.72 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5220193?

Bedroom Lamp: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Mirror: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Clothes Horse: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Coffee Table: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Crystal Ball Lamp: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Hanging Basket: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Ironing Board: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Ladder: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5066048 D…: $1,927.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $267.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Builders Labour And Materials: $1,808.72 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Cover: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Holes In Walls: $2,476.00 awarded to landlord; Wooden Blinds: $196.00 awarded to landlord; Soap Dispenser: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Television: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Toaster: $50.00 awarded to landlord; TV Cabinet: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Wall Key Unit: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Wall Shelf: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Weed Wand: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5220193?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5220193?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12305921-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5220193 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $9,546.72 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5220193?

Bedroom Lamp: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Mirror: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Clothes Horse: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Coffee Table: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Crystal Ball Lamp: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Hanging Basket: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Ironing Board: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Ladder: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5066048 D…: $1,927.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $267.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Builders Labour And Materials: $1,808.72 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Cover: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Holes In Walls: $2,476.00 awarded to landlord; Wooden Blinds: $196.00 awarded to landlord; Soap Dispenser: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Television: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Toaster: $50.00 awarded to landlord; TV Cabinet: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Wall Key Unit: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Wall Shelf: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Weed Wand: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5220193?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5220193?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12305921-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 14 Emano Street, Toi Toi, Nelson 7010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5220193 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat 3, 14 Emano Street, Toi Toi, Nelson 7010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5220193 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5220193 — net $9,546.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5066048 dated 18/12/2024	$1,927.00	Previous order application 5066048 dated 18/12/2024
Repairs: Heat pump cover	$280.00	Repairs: Heat pump cover
Repairs: Benchtop insurance excess	$550.00	Repairs: Benchtop insurance excess
Repairs: Builders labour and materials	$1,808.72	Repairs: Builders labour and materials
Repairs: Wooden blinds	$196.00	Repairs: Wooden blinds
Repairs: Holes in walls	$2,476.00	Repairs: Holes in walls
Lawns and Garden work	$240.00	Lawns and Garden work
Television	$250.00	Television
TV Cabinet	$200.00	TV Cabinet
Coffee table	$200.00	Coffee table
Crystal ball lamp	$50.00	Crystal ball lamp
Bedroom mirror	$40.00	Bedroom mirror
Toaster	$50.00	Toaster
Wall shelf	$30.00	Wall shelf
Soap dispenser	$30.00	Soap dispenser
Wall key unit	$40.00	Wall key unit
Bedroom lamp	$40.00	Bedroom lamp
Hanging basket	$25.00	Hanging basket
Ladder	$70.00	Ladder
Weed wand	$50.00	Weed wand
Ironing board	$70.00	Ironing board
Clothes horse	$30.00	Clothes horse
Lock/key replacement	$267.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$600.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,546.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,546.72

Claims and awards for application 5220193 — net $9,546.72 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Previous order application 5066048 dated 18/12/2024

Amount: $1,927.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Previous order application 5066048 dated 18/12/2024

Repairs: Heat pump cover

Amount: $280.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Heat pump cover

Repairs: Benchtop insurance excess

Amount: $550.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Benchtop insurance excess

Repairs: Builders labour and materials

Amount: $1,808.72
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Builders labour and materials

Repairs: Wooden blinds

Amount: $196.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $9,546.72 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Tribunal directs that the requirement for service on the tenant be dispensed with and the Tribunal proceeds in this matter as if notice had been served on the tenant in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (s.91B(2)(c) RTA).

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by Audio Visual link.
The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The tenancy ended on 22 December 2024. The application was filed by the landlord with the Tribunal on 31 March 2025. The landlord has not complied with the service requirements in section 91A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) which apply when an application is filed with the Tribunal more than two months after the end of a tenancy.
The notice of hearing was served on the tenant at an e-mail address provided by the tenant to the landlord during the course of the tenancy (but is not in the Tenancy Agreement) and by SMS message to a telephone number from which the landlord had received text messages from the tenant during the course of the tenancy.
Section 91B(2)(c) RTA provides that the Tribunal may dispense with the requirements for further service, if it is satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made to serve the notice on the tenant in accordance with the RTA. I am satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made to serve the tenant and further service of the notice of hearing is dispensed with.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent ?

The order of the Tribunal dated 18 December 2024 under TT 5066048, is combined with this order to assist with enforcement. Under that order the tenant was required to pay a balance of $1,927.00 to the landlord.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided evidence of the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy. The premises had not been left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided details of the work carried out by the landlord. The landlords hourly rate for cleaning is $20.00, which is reasonable. The landlord sought compensation of $800.00. The tenant is required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The work carried out by the landlord was to bring the premises back into a condition which I consider to be of a higher standard. I have discounted the landlord’s application to $600.00 which I consider to be a reasonable charge for the work required to bring these premises to a reasonably tidy standard.
The exterior of the premises were not left reasonably tidy. The landlord provided an invoice from a gardener for $240.00. The invoice covered lawn mowing, weeding and the removal of the waste. The charge is reasonable.
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord provided a copy of an invoice from a locksmith for $267.50.
An extensive list of chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy. The list is referred to in the orders above and I do not propose repeating the list. The landlord provided replacement costings for the items. In setting the appropriate level of compensation, 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 amounts ordered are proved.

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 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. The landlord is insured. The landlord’s policy of insurance carries an excess of $550.00 on each and every claim.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The carpet was damaged. The landlord explained that whilst the carpet was in good condition, it was approximately 15 years old. The carpet had been left with numerous cigarette burns. Hair dye and paint was found on the carpet. The carpet was unable to be cleaned. The carpet was replaced. The replacement cost was $5,008.00. The landlord’s insurers paid a claim of $3,358.00. The balance remaining is $1,650.00. The depreciated value of a carpet of this age in a tenancy is such that it had no residual value. The claim is dismissed.
The lino was damaged. The landlord explained that it was also approximately 15 years old. For the reasons given above in relating to depreciation and betterment, the application is dismissed.
A heat pump cover was damaged. The landlord provided an invoice for the replacement cost of $280.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The kitchen bench top was damaged. The landlord provided an invoice for the replacement. The landlord received an insurance payment, leaving a balance owing of $550.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord obtained the services of a carpenter to install the bench top, replace doors which had been damaged, rebuild the fence, fix the back door architrave, rehang curtain rails and remove the rubbish at a cost of $2,572.42. The insurance company accepted a claim of $762.70, leaving a balance owing of $1,808.72. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
Wooden kitchen blinds were damaged. The landlord provided an invoice for $196.00 The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
There were holes in almost every wall within the house. The cost to repair the holes and to repaint the damaged walls was $2,476.00. An insurance excess applied for each area of damage. That resulted in the amount that would have been payable by way of excess, being greater than the amount claimed. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The lounge suite was damaged. The lounge suite was 10 years old. The depreciated value of furniture is in a residential tenancy is such that it no longer has any remaining value. The application for compensation is dismissed.
In setting the levels of compensation above, 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 sought compensation for a doctor's fee. No evidence of a causal link between the actions of the tenant and the requirement to attend the doctor was provided. The burden of proof in this matter is on the landlord. I do not consider that the landlord has provided sufficient proof to reach the required standard of proof. The claim is dismissed
The landlord sought compensation for many hours of administrative work in preparing this claim and dealing with the tenant’s actions. The RTA does not provide jurisdiction to award compensation for costs of that nature. The claim is dismissed
As [The tenant/s] landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

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 5220193 — net $9,546.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5066048 dated 18/12/2024	$1,927.00	Previous order application 5066048 dated 18/12/2024
Repairs: Heat pump cover	$280.00	Repairs: Heat pump cover
Repairs: Benchtop insurance excess	$550.00	Repairs: Benchtop insurance excess
Repairs: Builders labour and materials	$1,808.72	Repairs: Builders labour and materials
Repairs: Wooden blinds	$196.00	Repairs: Wooden blinds
Repairs: Holes in walls	$2,476.00	Repairs: Holes in walls
Lawns and Garden work	$240.00	Lawns and Garden work
Television	$250.00	Television
TV Cabinet	$200.00	TV Cabinet
Coffee table	$200.00	Coffee table
Crystal ball lamp	$50.00	Crystal ball lamp
Bedroom mirror	$40.00	Bedroom mirror
Toaster	$50.00	Toaster
Wall shelf	$30.00	Wall shelf
Soap dispenser	$30.00	Soap dispenser
Wall key unit	$40.00	Wall key unit
Bedroom lamp	$40.00	Bedroom lamp
Hanging basket	$25.00	Hanging basket
Ladder	$70.00	Ladder
Weed wand	$50.00	Weed wand
Ironing board	$70.00	Ironing board
Clothes horse	$30.00	Clothes horse
Lock/key replacement	$267.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$600.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,546.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,546.72

Claims and awards for application 5220193 — net $9,546.72 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Previous order application 5066048 dated 18/12/2024

Amount: $1,927.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Previous order application 5066048 dated 18/12/2024

Repairs: Heat pump cover

Amount: $280.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Heat pump cover

Repairs: Benchtop insurance excess

Amount: $550.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Benchtop insurance excess

Repairs: Builders labour and materials

Amount: $1,808.72
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Builders labour and materials

Repairs: Wooden blinds

Amount: $196.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $9,546.72 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Tribunal directs that the requirement for service on the tenant be dispensed with and the Tribunal proceeds in this matter as if notice had been served on the tenant in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (s.91B(2)(c) RTA).

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by Audio Visual link.
The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The tenancy ended on 22 December 2024. The application was filed by the landlord with the Tribunal on 31 March 2025. The landlord has not complied with the service requirements in section 91A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) which apply when an application is filed with the Tribunal more than two months after the end of a tenancy.
The notice of hearing was served on the tenant at an e-mail address provided by the tenant to the landlord during the course of the tenancy (but is not in the Tenancy Agreement) and by SMS message to a telephone number from which the landlord had received text messages from the tenant during the course of the tenancy.
Section 91B(2)(c) RTA provides that the Tribunal may dispense with the requirements for further service, if it is satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made to serve the notice on the tenant in accordance with the RTA. I am satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made to serve the tenant and further service of the notice of hearing is dispensed with.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent ?

The order of the Tribunal dated 18 December 2024 under TT 5066048, is combined with this order to assist with enforcement. Under that order the tenant was required to pay a balance of $1,927.00 to the landlord.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided evidence of the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy. The premises had not been left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided details of the work carried out by the landlord. The landlords hourly rate for cleaning is $20.00, which is reasonable. The landlord sought compensation of $800.00. The tenant is required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The work carried out by the landlord was to bring the premises back into a condition which I consider to be of a higher standard. I have discounted the landlord’s application to $600.00 which I consider to be a reasonable charge for the work required to bring these premises to a reasonably tidy standard.
The exterior of the premises were not left reasonably tidy. The landlord provided an invoice from a gardener for $240.00. The invoice covered lawn mowing, weeding and the removal of the waste. The charge is reasonable.
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord provided a copy of an invoice from a locksmith for $267.50.
An extensive list of chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy. The list is referred to in the orders above and I do not propose repeating the list. The landlord provided replacement costings for the items. In setting the appropriate level of compensation, 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 amounts ordered are proved.

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 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. The landlord is insured. The landlord’s policy of insurance carries an excess of $550.00 on each and every claim.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The carpet was damaged. The landlord explained that whilst the carpet was in good condition, it was approximately 15 years old. The carpet had been left with numerous cigarette burns. Hair dye and paint was found on the carpet. The carpet was unable to be cleaned. The carpet was replaced. The replacement cost was $5,008.00. The landlord’s insurers paid a claim of $3,358.00. The balance remaining is $1,650.00. The depreciated value of a carpet of this age in a tenancy is such that it had no residual value. The claim is dismissed.
The lino was damaged. The landlord explained that it was also approximately 15 years old. For the reasons given above in relating to depreciation and betterment, the application is dismissed.
A heat pump cover was damaged. The landlord provided an invoice for the replacement cost of $280.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The kitchen bench top was damaged. The landlord provided an invoice for the replacement. The landlord received an insurance payment, leaving a balance owing of $550.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord obtained the services of a carpenter to install the bench top, replace doors which had been damaged, rebuild the fence, fix the back door architrave, rehang curtain rails and remove the rubbish at a cost of $2,572.42. The insurance company accepted a claim of $762.70, leaving a balance owing of $1,808.72. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
Wooden kitchen blinds were damaged. The landlord provided an invoice for $196.00 The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
There were holes in almost every wall within the house. The cost to repair the holes and to repaint the damaged walls was $2,476.00. An insurance excess applied for each area of damage. That resulted in the amount that would have been payable by way of excess, being greater than the amount claimed. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The lounge suite was damaged. The lounge suite was 10 years old. The depreciated value of furniture is in a residential tenancy is such that it no longer has any remaining value. The application for compensation is dismissed.
In setting the levels of compensation above, 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 sought compensation for a doctor's fee. No evidence of a causal link between the actions of the tenant and the requirement to attend the doctor was provided. The burden of proof in this matter is on the landlord. I do not consider that the landlord has provided sufficient proof to reach the required standard of proof. The claim is dismissed
The landlord sought compensation for many hours of administrative work in preparing this claim and dealing with the tenant’s actions. The RTA does not provide jurisdiction to award compensation for costs of that nature. The claim is dismissed
As [The tenant/s] landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5220193 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 3, 14 Emano Street, Toi Toi, Nelson 7010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5220193 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 3, 14 Emano Street, Toi Toi, Nelson 7010

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

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

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

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.