What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5249221 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 5249221?

Bailiff Fees: $258.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $845.25 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $2,240.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Floor Sealing: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Lock Change: $330.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,484.97 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5249221?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5249221?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13402438-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5249221 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 5249221?

Bailiff Fees: $258.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $845.25 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $2,240.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Floor Sealing: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Lock Change: $330.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,484.97 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5249221?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5249221?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13402438-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

90 Peacockes Road, Fitzroy, Hamilton 3206 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5249221 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5249221 — net $5,969.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Bailiff fees	$258.00		Bailiff fees
Lock change	$330.00		Lock change
Rubbish removal	$1,484.97		Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$845.25		Cleaning
Floor sealing	$184.00		Floor sealing
Exemplary Damages, Failure to vacate	$750.00		Exemplary Damages, Failure to vacate
Exemplary damages, Failure to restore, minor	$500.00		Exemplary damages, Failure to restore, minor
Compensation, Loss of rent	$2,240.00		Compensation, Loss of rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain,hole in the		$150.00	Failure to maintain,hole in the
Credit bond held		$500.00	Credit bond held
Total award	$6,619.22	$650.00
Net award	$5,969.22
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,969.22

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5249221 — net $5,969.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Bailiff fees	$258.00		Bailiff fees
Lock change	$330.00		Lock change
Rubbish removal	$1,484.97		Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$845.25		Cleaning
Floor sealing	$184.00		Floor sealing
Exemplary Damages, Failure to vacate	$750.00		Exemplary Damages, Failure to vacate
Exemplary damages, Failure to restore, minor	$500.00		Exemplary damages, Failure to restore, minor
Compensation, Loss of rent	$2,240.00		Compensation, Loss of rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: Failure to maintain,hole in the		$150.00	Failure to maintain,hole in the
Credit bond held		$500.00	Credit bond held
Total award	$6,619.22	$650.00
Net award	$5,969.22
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,969.22

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Shameema Begum must pay [The landlord/s] $5,969.22 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented by Counsel, Mr Max Rusero. [Agent 1] and [Agent 2] appeared as agents of the owner.
The tenancy began on 27 July 2016 and ended when the tenant was evicted by the bailiff on 23 June 2026.
The tenant was issued a valid 90-day notice on 31 January 2025 terminating the tenancy on 4 May 2025.
The tenant applied to the Tribunal on the basis that this was retaliatory notice, and the landlord filed a cross application applying for possession as the tenant had failed to vacate.
These claims were heard, and the Tribunal granted possession to the landlord effective 8 June 2025 dismissing the tenant’s application. The tenant did not appear due to illness but had the wrong contact details for the Tribunal, so the Tribunal was not aware of this and dismissed their application.
A stay was applied for and declined by the court on 5 June 2025 and the tenant advised to for a rehearing and stay with the Tribunal.
On 20 June 2025 the tenant applied for a rehearing and sought a stay. The tenant had been evicted on 23 June, and the stay was declined because the tenancy had ended, and premises vacated.
A rehearing was granted by an order dated on 16 October 2026 and both parties were permitted to update their claims.
The tenant has applied for compensation for items destroyed, reimbursement of towing fees, and exemplary damages for failure to maintain the premises.
The landlord has applied for compensation for eviction and end of tenancy costs, damages and exemplary damages.
Both parties sought reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord was ordered payment of part of the bond in a previous Tribunal order. The full bond was mistakenly refunded and the credit of $500.00 was held by the landlord until the Tribunal made further orders.
The party that brings the claims to the Tribunal has onus to prove them. The standard of proof in the Tenancy Tribunal is the balance of probabilities. This means I must be satisfied, on the evidence before me, that it is more likely than not that the event occurred.
For the avoidance of doubt, while I may not have referred to all the evidence and submissions presented in this order, I confirm that I have considered all the material before me in reaching my decision. The tenants claims Failure to secure items and compensation for missing items.
The tenant claims that she left a substantial number of items at the premises that were destroyed, sold or taken by the landlord. The tenant was evicted from the premises and from that point had limited to access the premises to move items and said valuable items that had not been removed were not stored but destroyed by the landlord.
The tenant provided the Tribunal with a list of 75 items that she said she has not seen since the end of the tenancy. Compensation for these items with an estimated value of $72,000.00 is sought.
When a tenancy ends, a landlord is required to make reasonable efforts to contact a tenant and agree with a time for them to collect the goods. If the tenant fails to do this the landlord must secure all personal documentation and make all reasonable efforts to assess the market value of the goods. See section 62 Residential Tenancies Act 1986,RTA.
The RTA further requires if the goods have a value above the cost of storing, transporting and selling them the landlord must secure them in safe storage for not less than 35 days and where the value of the goods is below the cost of storing, transporting and selling them, they can dispose of those goods in any way they see fit.
A landlord can apply also apply to the Tribunal for disposal of any goods left behind that are not perishable.
The tenant was given 3 extra days after the tenancy ended to remove all her belongings. After the 30th of June 2025 the tenant was trespassed and the landlord commenced with cleaning and repairs. The tenant claimed that the items left behind were valuable antiques that landlord failed to store and instead disposed of.
Although the Tenancy Tribunal is a lay persons Tribunal the tenant was granted representation by Counsel due to the value of the claim. When asked for proof of purchase, photographs or valuations of any of the items on the provided list, the applicants could produce no evidence of the purchase or value of any item.
The tenant said that she had been collecting for many years as part of her retirement plan and did not have the information.
A lot of items had been packed and moved to the tenant’s storage shed. She agreed that she had not opened all the boxes to establish what was there and what was missing.
The landlord came to some assistance providing photographs of what was inside the premises before and after the last moving truck had been. They said that 4 skip bins were required to clear out all the remaining items and these photographs were part of their cross-application evidence.
The date of the landlord photographs was debated with the tenant claiming items in the photographs had been destroyed and the landlord saying the photographs on 30 June 2025 were before the last of the movers left. With no evidence from the tenant to support this, the photographs dated 2 July 2025 to 7July 2025 were considered. These photographs were of items being items left after the last truck left and in them the tenant identified five items on the list of 75. The tenant did know the value of the items and gave estimates amounting to over $15,000.
This process was complicated as the landlord had given the tenant extra time after she was evicted by the bailiff on 23 June 2025 and locks changed. From 24 June to 27 June the tenant was allowed access to the premises from 9.30 am to 4pm to remove her valuables and belongings.
The landlord estimated one and a half 11 tonne trucks were filled and copies of invoices from Trust Movers were provided. The tenant said one and a half storage units were filled.
I find that the landlord complied with S62(2) RTA by giving the tenant time period within which the tenant was to collect the goods.
The tenant failed to vacate the premises and remove all personal possessions following eviction.
This raises the question on who was responsible for goods left at the premises.
The landlord allowed the tenant a further three days after the eviction to return and remove their belongings. The tenant was aware of this opportunity and the timeframe provided. The landlord attempted to sell items of any value to help cover some of the tenants’ costs but was unsuccessful.
The Tribunal is satisfied that this constituted a reasonable and fair opportunity for the tenant to remove their goods. The tenant did not do so, and items remained at the premises after the expiry of the additional time allowed.
It is the tenant’s responsibility to remove personal property at the end of a tenancy. That responsibility is not transferred to the landlord because additional time is granted. In fact, the landlord’s decision to allow further access weighs in the landlord’s favour and demonstrates a reasonable approach.
Once the tenant failed to remove their goods, the landlord’s obligations were confined to dealing with goods left behind, and did not extend to storing the tenant’s property indefinitely or remedying the tenant’s default.
The tenant had no evidence of the existence or any value of most of the items claimed. There was no evidence that the majority of the items were still at the premises and not previously removed or stored.
In these circumstances, the Tribunal finds that responsibility for the goods being left behind rests with the tenant. Any loss arising from that failure flows from the tenant’s own inaction and cannot be attributed to the landlord.
The claim for compensation for items left at the premises is dismissed. Fees for towing a car.
A car was left on the driveway at the premises after the tenant was trespassed on 28 June 2025. The car had its registration on hold so was unable to be driven.
The landlord organised for the car to be towed that day so they could get access to the premises and attend to the end of tenancy cleaning and repairs. The car was delivered to a location given by the tenant, and they were invoiced $350.00.
The tenant seeks reimbursement of this cost because they believe they could have had it done cheaper by a person they know and had not organised this as they had to focus on the removal of all their items after being evicted form the tenancy. There was no evidence provided of any quotes, or communication with contacts to support this.
The tenant said that she had appealed the termination of the tenancy and believed it would be accepted. The landlord said that she had been issued a valid 90-day notice in January 2025 and had plenty of time with all the time extensions to organise this.
The tenant had notice that the landlord sought to end the tenancy. A tenant’s obligation is to remove all their goods at the end of the tenancy and organising for a car to be removed is part of this.
I find that the tenant is liable for these costs and the claim for reimbursement is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

Shameema Begum claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A landlord duty to maintain a premises is balanced with a tenants responsibility to notify a landlord of any need for repairs. See section 40(1)(d) RTA.
The tenant claims that the landlord;
Failed to maintain and clean the gutters which were blocked and caused a leak. i. The tenant provided pictures of some growth in the gutters and claimed that this caused a leak inside. The landlord said that they had not seen the photographs and had no knowledge of either of these issues and it was not raised or noted at the 3 monthly inspections. ii.The tenant said that the communication was all verbal. Due to lack of evidence this claim is dismissed.
Failed to fix a hole in the wall after a new air-conditioning unit was installed in July 2024. i.It was not disputed that a hole was left in the wall. The landlord said that the hole was about 10cm square and was cosmetic only. ii.The tenant provided a copy of a message dated 2 September 2024 saying that they were waiting for the fence and hole to be fixed after the new air conditioner had been installed. The fence was fixed but no the hole. I find that the landlord has breached their obligations.
Failed to repair and replace the oven. i.The oven was new in 2016, and the tenant said it had stopped working in 2023 and the landlord was told about this. A text dated 26 July 2024 was provided where the tenant asked for the stove to be replaced ‘ASAP’. ii.The landlord replied that the oven had been assessed by electricians recently and ‘has no fault’. An invoice from Bardsley Electrical was provided dated 16 July 2024 which recorded tested free-standing stove, reporting that the ‘Stove is working correctly’. This also confirmed that the electrician was qualified to confirm it as this was questioned by the tenant. iii.I find that the actions of the landlord are appropriate and there is no breach of their obligations. This claim is dismissed.
Failed to maintain the paintwork on the front door. i.The front door to the premises had chipped and flaky paintwork. It did not affect the functionality, weather tightness or security. ii.The landlord said it was assessed and for the cost was not classed as a necessary repair but was to be addressed when other repairs at the property were undertaken. A copy of an invoice from Waikato Handyman Service dated 17 December 2024 noted ‘will paint front door at a later stage’. This did not occur before the end of the tenancy. iii.This is a cosmetic repair and there were no claims that it was functionality issue. There is no duty on a landlord to keep a property redecorated or cosmetically perfect .This claim is dismissed.
I find that the landlord has have committed an unlawful act on one occasion with respect to the hole in the wall.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The hole was through the gib board and obvious. The landlord knew about this from at least July 2024 and had a duty to fix this to prevent draughts and possible rodent entry. I find it just to award $150.0 in damages. Healthy Homes information
Shameema Begum claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.
This tenancy began in 2016, and the Healthy Homes regime was introduced via the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, which commenced on 1 July 2019.
There is no general statutory obligation on a landlord to later give Healthy Homes information to an existing tenant until the Healthy Homes regime was introduced and the disclosure duties came into force. However, disclosure obligations applied prospectively (to new or renewed agreements), rather than retrospectively to historic tenancies.
There was no claim that a request for Healthy Homes information was made by the tenant. No breach is established, and this claim is dismissed.
The tenant also said no chattels list was provided by the landlord .The landlord said that this was not a furnished property and there were no chattels provided. All items were noted in the pre tenancy check list.
The tenant could not show where there was a breach of the RTA, and this claim is dismissed. Credit from the bond refund
The tenant said that landlord breached the RTA by not keeping proper business records and this resulted in the landlord holding a credit owing to the tenant.
The landlord provided an up to date copy of the rent record which showed the refund of the full bond of $1600.00 to the landlord on 27 June 2025 leaving a credit of $500.00.
An order of the Tribunal dated 27 May 2025 awarded part of the bond to the landlord, but it appears some error resulted in the landlord receiving the full bond which is accounted for in their record keeping. I do not find that this was as a result of not keeping proper business accounts and there is no evidence of a request by the tenant for written statement of rental payments.
This claim is dismissed. The Landlords claim Bailiff fees and lock changes
The tenant was evicted from the premises, and the landlord sought reimbursement of the associated costs. Invoices for the eviction and lock change were provided and are awarded.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The premises were filled with a lot of items both inside and out, and in the equivalent of 3 single garages. The landlord hired 4, 1x 9.0m open topped skip bins to remove all the rubbish left behind after the tenant was given an extra 3 days post eviction to clear the premises. This included all the carpet from inside the premises, old furniture, outside pots boxes and bags and multiple household items. Photographs were provided. No claim was made for the landlords or their agents time to load the bins.
Invoices for the bins dated 1 July 2025, 3July 2025, 10 July 2025 and 26 July 2025 were provided and are awarded as claimed.
The premises were not left clean, because they were still full of items left behind. But this does not excuse the tenant from the responsibility. The cleaning amount is awarded as claimed being $845.25 incl gst.
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 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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: The carpet and flooring were stained beyond cleaning by dirt and cat urine.
The tenant kept cats in an outside room that was left with faeces on the floor. She said that occasionally the cats came inside.
The landlord provided photographs of the lifted carpets with large stains on the underside. They said it smelled of cat urine and the floors required special sealing treatment to ensure the new carpet was not contaminated. An invoice for this cost was provided from Specialist Maintenance Group limited for $184.00 including gst.
The tenant argued that the stains were caused by all the vermin entering in through the hole in the wall. A photograph of a mouse inside was provided.
The stains were significand and in multiple areas. I am not persuaded that vermin could cause this amount of damage.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The claim is only for the specialist cleaning cost, and this is awarded.
The amounts ordered are proved. Failure to quit.
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant did not vacate the premises on Sunday 8 June 2025 as ordered by the Tenancy Tribunal, being the date the tenancy ended.
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant had originally been given a 90 day notice to end the tenancy on 31 January 2025 and the landlord filed with the Tribunal on 5 May 2025 for possession. The landlord sought possession, giving the tenant extra time to remove belongings but discovered that they were still at the premises on 9 June 2025 being the date of the final inspection. They failed to vacate, An application for a stay to the District Court was declined and the tenant was evicted on 23 June.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.Remaining in possession is clearly and intentional act, the consequence of this is the cost and inconvenience of the removal of the tenant and their belongings and the lack in rental rom a new tenancy while this occurs.
The tenant was aware of the landlord’s intention to end the tenancy but had taken no steps to comply with her end of tenancy obligations to vacate. A tenant must comply with the requirements of the RTA.I find it just to award exemplary damages of $750.00. Minor changes
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has failed to return the premises to a condition that was substantially the same as the condition prior to a minor change being made by the tenant.
On or before the expiry of a tenancy the tenant must return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition the premises were in prior to the minor change being made. See 42B(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 See section 42B(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is not disputed that the tenant painted the living room walls, main bedroom walls, half a wall and some wooden trims . The tenant never asked for permission from the property managers saying she had verbal consent from the owner and the premises were too dark inside .No evidence of consent was provided and there were no attempts to reinstate the changes.
I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
This was intentional and the painting was not to a reasonable standard. Provision exists in the RTA which allow a tenant to make minor changes but there is no evidence that the tenant sought permission. It was clear that the tenancy was ending and there was no attempt to reinstate it to substantially the same condition. I find it just to award $500.00 for this breach. Change locks.
The landlord claims the tenant has altered the locks without consent.
A landlord must provide and maintain locks to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. Neither the landlord nor the tenant may alter or remove any locks without the other party's consent. See section 46(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 46(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant said bolts were added by the owner to inside of the front and back doors before the property managers took over the management of the property.
The landlords were unable to establish if the bolts were not there at the start of their management.
This claim is dismissed due to the lack of evidence. Compensation for loss of rent
The Tribunal does not award loss of rent automatically upon the ending of a tenancy. Loss of rent is compensatory and will be awarded only where the landlord establishes that, but for the tenant’s breach, the premises could reasonably have been re-let, that the claimed loss was directly caused by that breach, and that the landlord took reasonable steps to mitigate the loss.
The tenant said that the property has now been renovated and that they should not have to pay for this. There is always maintenance at the end of a tenancy, and they passed every inspection during the tenancy.
The landlord claims that the premises could not be rented for a substantial period due to the significant amount of rubbish and items left by the tenant,(4 skip bins) the carpet and flooring damages, restoring of gardens and sheds from cat use , repainting and restoring woodwork inside, and extensive cleaning required.
The landlord allowed extra time for the tenant to remove her belongings and did not charge for their labour to help with this. They said the floors were covered with items so they could not see the carpets during inspections.
The landlord said that it took 6 months before the premises were re-tenanted. They reduced their claim to 6 weeks of lost rental.
It has been found that the tenant breached the RTA by failing to quit the premises ,failed to remove any of the substantial number of items at the premise prior to eviction, failed to restore the premises after a minor change and damaged the carpets. I am satisfied that the delay in renting flows from the tenants’ actions and this caused a genuine delay. The landlord tried to mitigate the loss by helping with the removal of items.
It is difficult to assess the loss of rent as the premises were repainted and recarpeted which took some time. Considering the breaches by the tenant I find compensation of 1 month loss of rent is appropriate being $2240.00.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and granted name suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5249221 — Exemplary damages at 90 Peacockes Road, Fitzroy, Hamilton 3206

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5249221 — Exemplary damages at 90 Peacockes Road, Fitzroy, Hamilton 3206

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises?

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