What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5315569 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 5315569?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,099.43 awarded to landlord; Walls (Reduced: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $35.47 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5315569?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5315569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12764087-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5315569 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 5315569?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,099.43 awarded to landlord; Walls (Reduced: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $35.47 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5315569?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5315569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12764087-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

22 Riro Street, Point Chevalier, Auckland 1022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5315569 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5315569 — net $2,362.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (by consent	$1,099.43	Rent arrears (by consent
Water rates (by consent	$35.47	Water rates (by consent
Repairs: Walls (reduced	$1,000.00	Repairs: Walls (reduced
Cleaning: (reduced	$200.00	Cleaning: (reduced
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,362.90
Bond	$3,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,362.90

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord name and identifying details.
John Leach to pay [The landlord/s] $2,362.90 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,362.90 John Leach: $1,237.10
The landlord’s claim for Garden work is dismissed
The landlord’s claim for window repair is dismissed.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent and water arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation for an alleged breach of the Healthy Home Standards. Background
The tenancy started on 9 December 2022 and ended on 18 July 2025. The tenant resided there with his two children.
The premises consisted of a free-standing house with 3 bedrooms and 1 bathroom. The tenancy was initially fixed for a period of 12 months.
There has been communication between the parties by email. Both have provided documentary evidence and oral submissions.
I heard oral evidence from the parties today. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Issues
On the landlord’s application the issues to be determined are these:
Has the tenant breached his obligations under section 40 of the Residential

Tenancies Act 1986?

Has the landlord proved a claim for compensation?
On the tenant’s application the issues to be determined are these:
Has the landlord breached their obligations under the Healthy Homes

Regulations?

Legal Considerations

Before I address the specific claims, I will summarise some general legal principles that apply.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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 un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 18 July 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted the landlord’s evidence in support of these two claims I am satisfied that the claims have been established.
The tenant also confirmed during the hearing that he accepts these two claims.
The claim for outstanding rent and water charges are proven.

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 landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not leave the garden reasonably clean and tidy. Cleaning
The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. They say that the kitchen was the worst. The tenant accepts that there were areas that were not cleaned as good as it could have been.
The landlord provided comprehensive evidence in the form of entry and exit inspection reports. Analysis
A tenant is only required to leave premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Having carefully considered the exit photographs provided by the landlord I am satisfied that there were areas which required further cleaning.
That said, I find that the amount claimed for cleaning is simply not supported by the evidence provided and is unjustified.
Accordingly, I allow the claim for cleaning but reduce the amount awarded to $200.00. I am satisfied that this reduced amount fairly reflects the cleaning required.
The claim for cleaning is established and is reduced accordingly. Garden work
The landlord says that there was a garden bin supplied during the tenancy. The landlord says that the lawns were left untidy, and the garden left in a mess.
The landlord says that the lawn had been mowed but the grass clippings had not been tidied up. The landlord also referred me to photos on pages 40 and 41 of the exit inspection showing debris down the side of the house.
The tenant provided photographs and a series of videos taken on this iPad which I sighted during the hearing. Analysis
Having reviewed photographs of the outside of the property I am entirely satisfied that the tenant left the garden area and lawn in a very tidy condition. There is no evidence before me which suggests the tenant breached his obligations in this regard.
Accordingly, the claim for compensation for garden work is dismissed.

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.
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 landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to walls and window glass. Wall damage:
The landlord says that the tenant has damaged various walls throughout the house by placing picture hooks on the walls. The landlord says that the tenant also damaged a wall with a sofa. There was also damage caused by LED strip lights.
The tenant accepts part of this claim.
The tenant says that he was always prepared to pay for the two areas that he says was damaged by him, namely the two bedrooms of his children and the wall damage from the sofa.
The landlord also provided two invoices from Fineworks Housing Limited dated 25 October 2022 and 13 November 2022 confirming that the walls had been repainted prior to the tenant moving in. Analysis
The landlord’s claim for compensation for wall damage is partly allowed. It is accepted that the tenant installed small hooks and nails in the walls to hang pictures, and LED strips resulting in minor holes paint removal.
While some degree of wear and tear is expected in a residential tenancy, the number and size of the holes and other minor damage exceed what would reasonably be considered fair wear and tear.
Accordingly, I find the tenant liable for the reasonable cost of repairing and making good the affected areas, limited to patching and repainting only those sections of wall where the damage occurred.
I award a reduced amount of $1,000.00 which is a fair contribution towards the repair cost.
The landlord’s claim for full redecoration of the walls is declined, as this would amount to betterment. Window repair
The landlord claims $382.00 for reglazing a broken dining room window which the landlord says the tenant caused. The landlord referred me to the exit photos page 33 photo number 47. The landlord says that it is a chip/crack in the glass.
The tenant says that it was caused by when he was mowing the lawn and a river stone has flown up and hit the window.
The landlord has provided an invoice from South Auckland Glass dated $382.00 dated 6 August 2025. Analysis
Having considered the photographic evidence of this claim along with the tenant’s explanation provided during the hearing I am satisfied that this is accidental damage. I find that the damage could not have been reasonably prevented even with due care and attention. I accept that the damage is purely accidental. There is also no evidence provided by the landlord which suggests otherwise.
A tenant is not liable for accidental damage to the premises, provided the damage was not intentional or caused by a careless act, and the tenant was not otherwise in breach of their obligations under the tenancy agreement or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The claim for window repair is dismissed. Tenant application
The tenant claims as follows:
The tenant seeks compensation of $2000.00 which is made up as follows: • A partial rent refund of $1300.00 • Power refund. The tenant says he has spent $1600.00 more in electricity than he normally would. He seeks half that amount.
The tenant said that the roof was not replaced while he was residing there. The roof was replaced after he moved out. The tenant says that the roof is being replaced at this very moment.
The landlord provided a Healthy Homes Assessment Report dated 28 October 2022 undertaken by All Clear Limited. The report confirmed that the premises fully complied with Healthy Homes. The ceiling insulation had an exemption.
The tenant says that he received the Healthy Homes assessment report the day after he moved into the property. He further says that the premises were cold and damp.
The tenant provided a photograph of his RM William boots covered in mould. He further stated that his son’s duvet was always damp. The tenant says that he had to leave the dehumidifier running throughout the colder months.
The landlord says that the insulation statement in the Tenancy Agreement clearly set out that the ceiling insulation had an exemption. The landlord says that the owner was proactive. A new heat pump was installed during this tenancy on 5 July 2023.
The tenant says that a wood burner within the premises was not working at the start of the tenancy. The tenant also says that the new heat pump was inadequate and did not heat the property enough. The Healthy Homes assessment report dated October 2022 confirms that the existing heat pump met the requirements. Analysis
The tenant’s claim for compensation for alleged breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards is dismissed. The landlord has provided a Healthy Homes Assessment Report which confirms that the premises are fully compliant with all applicable Healthy Homes Regulations. There is also no evidence filed by the tenant which supports a claim for a partial rent refund and a part refund of electricity bills.
In the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary from the tenant, I am satisfied that the landlord has met their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Healthy Homes Standards.
Accordingly, no breach has been established and the claim is declined.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application has been substantially successful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5315569 — net $2,362.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (by consent	$1,099.43	Rent arrears (by consent
Water rates (by consent	$35.47	Water rates (by consent
Repairs: Walls (reduced	$1,000.00	Repairs: Walls (reduced
Cleaning: (reduced	$200.00	Cleaning: (reduced
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,362.90
Bond	$3,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,362.90

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord name and identifying details.
John Leach to pay [The landlord/s] $2,362.90 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,362.90 John Leach: $1,237.10
The landlord’s claim for Garden work is dismissed
The landlord’s claim for window repair is dismissed.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent and water arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation for an alleged breach of the Healthy Home Standards. Background
The tenancy started on 9 December 2022 and ended on 18 July 2025. The tenant resided there with his two children.
The premises consisted of a free-standing house with 3 bedrooms and 1 bathroom. The tenancy was initially fixed for a period of 12 months.
There has been communication between the parties by email. Both have provided documentary evidence and oral submissions.
I heard oral evidence from the parties today. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Issues
On the landlord’s application the issues to be determined are these:
Has the tenant breached his obligations under section 40 of the Residential

Tenancies Act 1986?

Has the landlord proved a claim for compensation?
On the tenant’s application the issues to be determined are these:
Has the landlord breached their obligations under the Healthy Homes

Regulations?

Legal Considerations

Before I address the specific claims, I will summarise some general legal principles that apply.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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 un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 18 July 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted the landlord’s evidence in support of these two claims I am satisfied that the claims have been established.
The tenant also confirmed during the hearing that he accepts these two claims.
The claim for outstanding rent and water charges are proven.

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 landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not leave the garden reasonably clean and tidy. Cleaning
The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. They say that the kitchen was the worst. The tenant accepts that there were areas that were not cleaned as good as it could have been.
The landlord provided comprehensive evidence in the form of entry and exit inspection reports. Analysis
A tenant is only required to leave premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Having carefully considered the exit photographs provided by the landlord I am satisfied that there were areas which required further cleaning.
That said, I find that the amount claimed for cleaning is simply not supported by the evidence provided and is unjustified.
Accordingly, I allow the claim for cleaning but reduce the amount awarded to $200.00. I am satisfied that this reduced amount fairly reflects the cleaning required.
The claim for cleaning is established and is reduced accordingly. Garden work
The landlord says that there was a garden bin supplied during the tenancy. The landlord says that the lawns were left untidy, and the garden left in a mess.
The landlord says that the lawn had been mowed but the grass clippings had not been tidied up. The landlord also referred me to photos on pages 40 and 41 of the exit inspection showing debris down the side of the house.
The tenant provided photographs and a series of videos taken on this iPad which I sighted during the hearing. Analysis
Having reviewed photographs of the outside of the property I am entirely satisfied that the tenant left the garden area and lawn in a very tidy condition. There is no evidence before me which suggests the tenant breached his obligations in this regard.
Accordingly, the claim for compensation for garden work is dismissed.

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.
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 landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to walls and window glass. Wall damage:
The landlord says that the tenant has damaged various walls throughout the house by placing picture hooks on the walls. The landlord says that the tenant also damaged a wall with a sofa. There was also damage caused by LED strip lights.
The tenant accepts part of this claim.
The tenant says that he was always prepared to pay for the two areas that he says was damaged by him, namely the two bedrooms of his children and the wall damage from the sofa.
The landlord also provided two invoices from Fineworks Housing Limited dated 25 October 2022 and 13 November 2022 confirming that the walls had been repainted prior to the tenant moving in. Analysis
The landlord’s claim for compensation for wall damage is partly allowed. It is accepted that the tenant installed small hooks and nails in the walls to hang pictures, and LED strips resulting in minor holes paint removal.
While some degree of wear and tear is expected in a residential tenancy, the number and size of the holes and other minor damage exceed what would reasonably be considered fair wear and tear.
Accordingly, I find the tenant liable for the reasonable cost of repairing and making good the affected areas, limited to patching and repainting only those sections of wall where the damage occurred.
I award a reduced amount of $1,000.00 which is a fair contribution towards the repair cost.
The landlord’s claim for full redecoration of the walls is declined, as this would amount to betterment. Window repair
The landlord claims $382.00 for reglazing a broken dining room window which the landlord says the tenant caused. The landlord referred me to the exit photos page 33 photo number 47. The landlord says that it is a chip/crack in the glass.
The tenant says that it was caused by when he was mowing the lawn and a river stone has flown up and hit the window.
The landlord has provided an invoice from South Auckland Glass dated $382.00 dated 6 August 2025. Analysis
Having considered the photographic evidence of this claim along with the tenant’s explanation provided during the hearing I am satisfied that this is accidental damage. I find that the damage could not have been reasonably prevented even with due care and attention. I accept that the damage is purely accidental. There is also no evidence provided by the landlord which suggests otherwise.
A tenant is not liable for accidental damage to the premises, provided the damage was not intentional or caused by a careless act, and the tenant was not otherwise in breach of their obligations under the tenancy agreement or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The claim for window repair is dismissed. Tenant application
The tenant claims as follows:
The tenant seeks compensation of $2000.00 which is made up as follows: • A partial rent refund of $1300.00 • Power refund. The tenant says he has spent $1600.00 more in electricity than he normally would. He seeks half that amount.
The tenant said that the roof was not replaced while he was residing there. The roof was replaced after he moved out. The tenant says that the roof is being replaced at this very moment.
The landlord provided a Healthy Homes Assessment Report dated 28 October 2022 undertaken by All Clear Limited. The report confirmed that the premises fully complied with Healthy Homes. The ceiling insulation had an exemption.
The tenant says that he received the Healthy Homes assessment report the day after he moved into the property. He further says that the premises were cold and damp.
The tenant provided a photograph of his RM William boots covered in mould. He further stated that his son’s duvet was always damp. The tenant says that he had to leave the dehumidifier running throughout the colder months.
The landlord says that the insulation statement in the Tenancy Agreement clearly set out that the ceiling insulation had an exemption. The landlord says that the owner was proactive. A new heat pump was installed during this tenancy on 5 July 2023.
The tenant says that a wood burner within the premises was not working at the start of the tenancy. The tenant also says that the new heat pump was inadequate and did not heat the property enough. The Healthy Homes assessment report dated October 2022 confirms that the existing heat pump met the requirements. Analysis
The tenant’s claim for compensation for alleged breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards is dismissed. The landlord has provided a Healthy Homes Assessment Report which confirms that the premises are fully compliant with all applicable Healthy Homes Regulations. There is also no evidence filed by the tenant which supports a claim for a partial rent refund and a part refund of electricity bills.
In the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary from the tenant, I am satisfied that the landlord has met their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Healthy Homes Standards.
Accordingly, no breach has been established and the claim is declined.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application has been substantially successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5315569 — Rent arrears at 22 Riro Street, Point Chevalier, Auckland 1022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5315569 — Rent arrears at 22 Riro Street, Point Chevalier, Auckland 1022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Tenancies Act 1986?

Regulations?

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Tenancies Act 1986?

Regulations?

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