What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5304079 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 5304079?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Curtains X 2: $156.90 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Tap: $113.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $402.33 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $514.29 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Shower Rail: $20.60 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seat: $41.49 awarded to landlord; Waste Disposal Switch: $51.98 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $228.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304079?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304079?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12605822-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5304079 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 5304079?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Curtains X 2: $156.90 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Tap: $113.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $402.33 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $514.29 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Shower Rail: $20.60 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seat: $41.49 awarded to landlord; Waste Disposal Switch: $51.98 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $228.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304079?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304079?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12605822-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

93 Consols Street, Waihi 3610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5304079 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5304079 — net $1,165.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 30 June 2025	$514.29	Rent arrears (to 30 June 2025
Water rates (from 23 January 2025 to 26 June 2025	$228.14	Water rates (from 23 January 2025 to 26 June 2025
Carpet Cleaning	$200.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$150.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$402.33	Lock/key replacement
Curtains x 2	$156.90	Curtains x 2
Kitchen tap	$113.25	Kitchen tap
Shower rail	$20.60	Shower rail
Toilet seat	$41.49	Toilet seat
Waste disposal switch	$51.98	Waste disposal switch
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,165.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,165.61

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Vandana Kapoor must pay [The landlord/s] $1,165.61 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $741.37 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

On 15 July 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.
[Property Manager], Property Manager, appeared for the landlord.
The tenant did not appear. The Tribunal was satisfied that the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in her absence. Background of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 29 June 2023 and was periodic.
The tenancy was terminated by an order of the Tribunal on 19 June 2025 and possession was granted to the landlord at midnight on Sunday 22 June 2025. 1 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 1 PGG Wrightson Real Estate Limited as Agent for T O’Callaghan v Vandana Kapoor [2025] NZTT 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 and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 22 June 2025 by an order of the Tribunal and rent was awarded until that date. 2
The tenant failed to vacate the premises on 22 June 2025 and the landlord agreed she could remain in the property, provided she continued to pay rent, until she arranged for her possessions to be removed. The landlord told the Tribunal that a charity removed some items of the tenant’s furniture on 30 June 2025. The remaining items were abandoned by the tenant.
The landlord seeks rent arrears totalling $514.29 to 30 June 2025 and provided an up-to-date rent record which proved the amount owed. The amount claimed is awarded.
The landlord seeks water rates, for use only, totalling $228.14 to 26 June 2025 and provided an invoice in the amount claimed. The invoice was sent to the tenant by e-mail and remains unpaid. The amount claimed is 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) of the Act. Carpet cleaning
The landlord seeks $450.00 after paying a contractor to carpet clean the whole of the property and provided an invoice in the amount claimed.
The landlord said that at the end of the tenancy the properties carpets were left “grotty” by the tenant. The landlord specifically drew the Tribunal’s attention to a white water paint stain visible on the carpet in bedroom one and a yellow water paint stain visible on the living room carpet.
The landlord provided a pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs which proved the carpet was brand new at the commencement of the tenancy.
An exit inspection report with photographs was provided. The inspection report indicates that the floor coverings in all but the living room and bedroom one, were returned in satisfactory condition. The photographs show a small amount of white paint in bedroom one and yellow paint in the living room.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the whole of the property required professional carpet 2 Ibid at [2]. cleaning. The Tribunal accepts that the carpet in bedroom one and the living room required stain removal treatment and on that basis $200.00 is awarded. Rubbish
The landlord seeks $150.00 after paying a contractor to remove rubbish, unwanted furniture and household items left behind by the tenant at the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The pre-tenancy inspection photographs show the property was provided in a clean and tidy condition and free from rubbish.
The exit photographs show the tenant failed to remove all rubbish, household items and furniture from the property at the end of the tenancy.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant failed to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is awarded. Locks
The landlord seeks $402.33 after paying a contractor to change the locks after the tenant failed to return the keys at the end of the tenancy. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
The Tribunal accepts that a lock change was necessary to secure the property after the tenant failed to return the keys 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 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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. Curtains
The landlord seeks $156.90 after replacing thermal ready-made curtains in the dining room and bedroom two at the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord states that at the commencement of the tenancy the curtains were brand new, and no defects were recorded on the pre-tenancy inspection report.
At the end of the tenancy the thermal lining of the curtains in the dining room and bedroom two were badly damaged with black marks and holes.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the curtains were damaged during the tenancy and the damage was more than fair wear and tear. The amount claimed was awarded. Kitchen tap
The landlord seeks $113.25, the cost of replacing the kitchen tap, after discovering the handle was snapped off rendering it inoperable. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The pre-tenancy report and photographs show the kitchen tap was intact and in good working condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
The exit report and photographs show the handle on the tap had been broken and could not be used.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds that the tap was damaged during the tenancy and the damage was more than fair wear and tear. The landlord did not include a labour charge to source and fit the tap. The amount claimed is ordered. Waste disposal switch
The landlord seeks $51.98 after replacing the waste disposal switch that was removed and left broken on the kitchen bench. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The pre-tenancy inspection report and photographs record that the switch was in place and functioning at the commencement of the tenancy.
The exit report and photographs show the hole in the bench where the switch had been located. The fittings for the switch were left broken and sitting on the bench.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds that the waste disposal switch was broken during the tenancy and the damage was more than fair wear and tear. The landlord seeks the cost of the replacement part only and did not include a labour charge. The amount claimed is ordered. Toilet seat
The landlord seeks $41.49 after replacing the toilet seat after the hinges were damaged preventing the toilet seat from being properly secured to the toilet bowl. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The entry inspection report and photographs show the toilet seat to be properly secured and in good condition.
The exit report and photographs show the toilet seat was not properly secured to the toilet bowl and the left-hand hinge was broken.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the toilet seat was broken during the tenancy and the damage was more than fair wear and tear. The landlord did not include a labour charge to source and fit the toilet seat. The amount claimed is ordered. Shower curtain rod
The landlord seeks $20.60 after replacing the shower curtain rod after discovering it was badly bent at the end of the tenancy.
The pre-tenancy inspection report and photographs do not show any defects with the rod at the commencement of the tenancy.
The exit report and photographs show the rod was badly bent in the middle.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds that the shower curtain rod was damaged during the tenancy and the damage was more than fair wear and tear. The amount claimed is awarded. Shower curtain
The landlord seeks $20.60 to replace the shower curtain they say was missing at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord stated that at the commencement of the tenancy the shower was provided with a striped shower curtain. At the end of the tenancy the property was returned with a floral shower curtain and the striped shower curtain could not be found.
The landlord could not advise the Tribunal of the condition of the floral shower curtain, but accepted it was possible the striped shower curtain was replaced due to general wear and tear arising from use.
The Tribunal cannot discount the possibility that the shower curtain was replaced due to general wear and tear and the claim is dismissed. Lock box
The landlord seeks $89.98 after replacing the lock box they say was damaged by the tenant during the tenancy.
There are no pre-tenancy photographs showing the lock box at the commencement of the tenancy and the pre-tenancy inspection report does not include the lock box.
The exit report has a photograph of a broken lock box.
Based on the available evidence the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the lock box was damaged during the tenancy. The claim is dismissed. Costs
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name Suppression
The landlord seeks name suppression. Under section 95A of the Act a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.
In this case the landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5304079 — net $1,165.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 30 June 2025	$514.29	Rent arrears (to 30 June 2025
Water rates (from 23 January 2025 to 26 June 2025	$228.14	Water rates (from 23 January 2025 to 26 June 2025
Carpet Cleaning	$200.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$150.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$402.33	Lock/key replacement
Curtains x 2	$156.90	Curtains x 2
Kitchen tap	$113.25	Kitchen tap
Shower rail	$20.60	Shower rail
Toilet seat	$41.49	Toilet seat
Waste disposal switch	$51.98	Waste disposal switch
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,165.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,165.61

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Vandana Kapoor must pay [The landlord/s] $1,165.61 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $741.37 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

On 15 July 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.
[Property Manager], Property Manager, appeared for the landlord.
The tenant did not appear. The Tribunal was satisfied that the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in her absence. Background of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 29 June 2023 and was periodic.
The tenancy was terminated by an order of the Tribunal on 19 June 2025 and possession was granted to the landlord at midnight on Sunday 22 June 2025. 1 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 1 PGG Wrightson Real Estate Limited as Agent for T O’Callaghan v Vandana Kapoor [2025] NZTT 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 and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 22 June 2025 by an order of the Tribunal and rent was awarded until that date. 2
The tenant failed to vacate the premises on 22 June 2025 and the landlord agreed she could remain in the property, provided she continued to pay rent, until she arranged for her possessions to be removed. The landlord told the Tribunal that a charity removed some items of the tenant’s furniture on 30 June 2025. The remaining items were abandoned by the tenant.
The landlord seeks rent arrears totalling $514.29 to 30 June 2025 and provided an up-to-date rent record which proved the amount owed. The amount claimed is awarded.
The landlord seeks water rates, for use only, totalling $228.14 to 26 June 2025 and provided an invoice in the amount claimed. The invoice was sent to the tenant by e-mail and remains unpaid. The amount claimed is 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) of the Act. Carpet cleaning
The landlord seeks $450.00 after paying a contractor to carpet clean the whole of the property and provided an invoice in the amount claimed.
The landlord said that at the end of the tenancy the properties carpets were left “grotty” by the tenant. The landlord specifically drew the Tribunal’s attention to a white water paint stain visible on the carpet in bedroom one and a yellow water paint stain visible on the living room carpet.
The landlord provided a pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs which proved the carpet was brand new at the commencement of the tenancy.
An exit inspection report with photographs was provided. The inspection report indicates that the floor coverings in all but the living room and bedroom one, were returned in satisfactory condition. The photographs show a small amount of white paint in bedroom one and yellow paint in the living room.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the whole of the property required professional carpet 2 Ibid at [2]. cleaning. The Tribunal accepts that the carpet in bedroom one and the living room required stain removal treatment and on that basis $200.00 is awarded. Rubbish
The landlord seeks $150.00 after paying a contractor to remove rubbish, unwanted furniture and household items left behind by the tenant at the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The pre-tenancy inspection photographs show the property was provided in a clean and tidy condition and free from rubbish.
The exit photographs show the tenant failed to remove all rubbish, household items and furniture from the property at the end of the tenancy.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant failed to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is awarded. Locks
The landlord seeks $402.33 after paying a contractor to change the locks after the tenant failed to return the keys at the end of the tenancy. An invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
The Tribunal accepts that a lock change was necessary to secure the property after the tenant failed to return the keys 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 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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. Curtains
The landlord seeks $156.90 after replacing thermal ready-made curtains in the dining room and bedroom two at the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord states that at the commencement of the tenancy the curtains were brand new, and no defects were recorded on the pre-tenancy inspection report.
At the end of the tenancy the thermal lining of the curtains in the dining room and bedroom two were badly damaged with black marks and holes.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the curtains were damaged during the tenancy and the damage was more than fair wear and tear. The amount claimed was awarded. Kitchen tap
The landlord seeks $113.25, the cost of replacing the kitchen tap, after discovering the handle was snapped off rendering it inoperable. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The pre-tenancy report and photographs show the kitchen tap was intact and in good working condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
The exit report and photographs show the handle on the tap had been broken and could not be used.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds that the tap was damaged during the tenancy and the damage was more than fair wear and tear. The landlord did not include a labour charge to source and fit the tap. The amount claimed is ordered. Waste disposal switch
The landlord seeks $51.98 after replacing the waste disposal switch that was removed and left broken on the kitchen bench. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The pre-tenancy inspection report and photographs record that the switch was in place and functioning at the commencement of the tenancy.
The exit report and photographs show the hole in the bench where the switch had been located. The fittings for the switch were left broken and sitting on the bench.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds that the waste disposal switch was broken during the tenancy and the damage was more than fair wear and tear. The landlord seeks the cost of the replacement part only and did not include a labour charge. The amount claimed is ordered. Toilet seat
The landlord seeks $41.49 after replacing the toilet seat after the hinges were damaged preventing the toilet seat from being properly secured to the toilet bowl. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The entry inspection report and photographs show the toilet seat to be properly secured and in good condition.
The exit report and photographs show the toilet seat was not properly secured to the toilet bowl and the left-hand hinge was broken.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the toilet seat was broken during the tenancy and the damage was more than fair wear and tear. The landlord did not include a labour charge to source and fit the toilet seat. The amount claimed is ordered. Shower curtain rod
The landlord seeks $20.60 after replacing the shower curtain rod after discovering it was badly bent at the end of the tenancy.
The pre-tenancy inspection report and photographs do not show any defects with the rod at the commencement of the tenancy.
The exit report and photographs show the rod was badly bent in the middle.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds that the shower curtain rod was damaged during the tenancy and the damage was more than fair wear and tear. The amount claimed is awarded. Shower curtain
The landlord seeks $20.60 to replace the shower curtain they say was missing at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord stated that at the commencement of the tenancy the shower was provided with a striped shower curtain. At the end of the tenancy the property was returned with a floral shower curtain and the striped shower curtain could not be found.
The landlord could not advise the Tribunal of the condition of the floral shower curtain, but accepted it was possible the striped shower curtain was replaced due to general wear and tear arising from use.
The Tribunal cannot discount the possibility that the shower curtain was replaced due to general wear and tear and the claim is dismissed. Lock box
The landlord seeks $89.98 after replacing the lock box they say was damaged by the tenant during the tenancy.
There are no pre-tenancy photographs showing the lock box at the commencement of the tenancy and the pre-tenancy inspection report does not include the lock box.
The exit report has a photograph of a broken lock box.
Based on the available evidence the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the lock box was damaged during the tenancy. The claim is dismissed. Costs
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name Suppression
The landlord seeks name suppression. Under section 95A of the Act a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.
In this case the landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304079 — Rent arrears at 93 Consols Street, Waihi 3610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304079 — Rent arrears at 93 Consols Street, Waihi 3610

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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 and water rates?

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