What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5322240 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] And Portfolio

How much money was awarded in case 5322240?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $245.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $447.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5322240?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5322240?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12605417-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5322240 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] And Portfolio

How much money was awarded in case 5322240?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $245.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $447.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5322240?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5322240?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12605417-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 Flemington Place, Nawton, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5322240 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5322240 — net $905.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement: - A1 Locksmith invoice	$245.00	Lock/key replacement: - A1 Locksmith invoice
Rubbish removal: Waste management	$447.30	Rubbish removal: Waste management
Rubbish removal: Skip bins	$345.00	Rubbish removal: Skip bins
Carpet replacement	$550.00	Carpet replacement
Repairs: Wall repairs - painting	$1,250.00	Repairs: Wall repairs - painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$905.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$905.30

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] And Portfolio Management Limited $905.30 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
For ease of reference, I will refer to the tenants in the singular. The landlord’s property manager attended the hearing, and I will refer to the property manager as the landlord for ease of reference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenancy commenced in September 2020 and ended in June 2025.

PROCEDURAL NOTE

Initially [The tenant/s] tenant/s] attended the hearing by phone. She indicated she would attend for both tenants, however [The tenant/s] tenant/s] then joined the hearing on Karen’s phone and it appeared during the hearing that Karen was allowing Ruihi to attend for them both. Ruihi also asked for an adjournment as she said she had work however I declined to adjourn the matter as the tenant did not provide evidence prior to the hearing to confirm she had employment and had to attend work. Ruihi left the hearing a number of times during the hearing as she was unhappy about the claims being made. I endeavoured to call Ruihi back when she left the hearing, however ultimately, she did not remain until the end of the hearing and the hearing proceeded without both tenant’s attendance.
I note the landlord sought to provide evidence in relation to other work completed at the end of the tenancy. I declined to hear this evidence as I did not consider it relevant to the specific claims before the Tribunal.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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 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 1 , 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.”
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS AT THE END OF THE

TENANCY?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all his or her goods from the premises, 2 leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, 3 and remove all rubbish. 4

RUBBISH REMOVAL

The landlord claims the tenant did not remove all their rubbish.
Post-tenancy photographs provided by the landlord show the tenant did not remove all rubbish. Rubbish was left outside the premises and larger items were also left at the premises. The amount ordered for rubbish removal is proved with photographs, oral evidence, waste management receipts ($220 .50 and $226.80 – total $447.30) and an invoice for a skip bin ($345). KEY / LOCK REPLACMEENT
The tenant did not return the keys. The amount ordered is proved with an invoice for the locksmith ($245) and oral evidence.

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 See section 40 (1)(e) (ii) of the RTA. 3 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 4 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA.

A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 5 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 6
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 7
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). 8
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). 9 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 10
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. 11 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. 12
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

CARPET REPLACEMENT

The landlord claimed $550 being the insurance excess in respect of a claim for carpet replacement. The landlord said that while the insurance policy required 5 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 6 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 7 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 8 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 9 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 10 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 11 See section 49B(1) RTA. 12 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. an insurance excess be paid for each room the insurer had initially provided incorrect information that only one insurance excess was required and therefore the landlord was only required to pay the one insurance excess for this claim.
The landlord says the tenant’s damaged the carpet during the tenancy. The landlord says the tenant had 9 to 10 cats at the property which had urinated is every single room and the stains on the carpet were visible. This is noted in the outgoing inspection report and was confirmed by way of oral evidence. The landlord says in some areas the carpet was ripped or torn. The landlord says they tried cleaning the carpet however they had to be removed, as did the underlay. The landlord said the urine stains were so severe the wooden flooring under the underlay had also been stained. I consider this damage to likely have been intentional, given the tenant would likely have known that a number of cats in the home would cause significant urine damage.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord purchased the property in 2016 and the carpet was new and had just been installed when the property was purchased.
The carpet was approximately 9 years old by the end of the tenancy. The IR265 general depreciation rates states the useful lifespan of carpet is 8 years. In addition, some fair wear and tear should be expected. However, I also note from the ingoing inspection report that carpet appeared to be in good condition at the start of the tenancy. Therefore, I consider the landlord could have expected several more years of use from them.
I allowed the landlord the opportunity to provide confirmation of the total cost to replace the carpet following the hearing and the landlord provided confirmation from the insurer that the total cost to replace the carpet in the three bedrooms, one hallway and one living room was $4,773.90.
In taking in account betterment and depreciation I consider that it reasonable that the tenant pays the insurance excess of $550 to reflect the tenant’s breach. The amount ordered of $550 is proved with information from the insurance company, a pre-tenancy and post-tenancy report and oral evidence.

WALL PAINTING

The landlord says the walls throughout the premises were damaged during the tenancy.
The landlord provided ingoing and outgoing inspection report in support of the claim. There are various areas of wall damage throughout the premises, some of which appears to be intentional, and it appears the tenant has attempted to repair the damage, however has not done so to a reasonable standard. Other areas appear to have been the result of carelessness (ie the tenant accepted some of the damage arose when moving furniture) and other areas of damage appear to be the result of fair wear and tear.
Therefore, some of the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord claimed $145.45 for painting supplies and $5750 for labour for painting (total $5,895.45). The invoice from B & G Painting Limited did not itemise the tasks undertaken but records ‘Interior painting” was undertaken. I understand the lounge, 3 bedrooms and hallway (which had a small hole in the wall) were painted and the bathroom had some repairs undertaken, The landlord provided a more detailed invoice after the hearing. The landlord was not given the opportunity to file this new evidence after the hearing and I consider I cannot give it any weight. In any event, this additional evidence would not have altered the outcome of my decision as it does not itemise the value of different tasks undertaken.
The ceilings were also painted; however, the evidence does not indicate the ceilings were damaged, but rather that they were unclean.
The landlord has not made a claim for insurance to cover the damage. The landlord said that had they made a claim there would be numerous insurance excesses for each specific event of damage.
I must consider betterment and depreciation. I consider the general lifespan of painted walls in a rental property is between 8-12 years and therefore the landlords should reasonably expect to re-paint the interior every 8-12 years. In this case it has been 9 years since the premises had been painted.
The ingoing inspection report dated from August 2020 records general wear and tear on the walls throughout the premises.
In the absence of a clearly itemised invoice, I make a deduction of $895.45 to reflect the painting of the ceiling. I then reduce the balance by 75% to reflect betterment and depreciation and fair wear and tear. I award $1,250, which I consider reasonably compensates the landlord for the tenant’s breach.

SHOWER DAMAGE

The landlord claimed compensation to repair the shower.
The landlord said the shower wall lining had been split during the tenancy and it looked like a person’s knee had gone into the shower wall. The landlord explained that this damage was not picked up in the final inspection (and therefore not noted in the report) and it would not have been evident unless someone pushed on the wall. The landlord said the leak was discovered when the carpet was uplifted and there was water on the floorboards at which point the landlord undertook further investigation and found the damage to the shower wall lining. The landlord said the wood has not deteriorated however the shower lining required replacing.
The landlord said that the tenant has either caused the damage or failed to report the damage as an accident and is therefore liable for the repair.
The landlord suggested the hallway carpet would have been wet from the leak when using the shower, so the tenant should have known about the damage.
The landlord has not provided any photographs of the damage or the floorboards following the carpet being uplifted to illustrate the extent of the leak. While I accept that the shower lining may have had some damage that required repair, I am not satisfied on the evidence that the damage was more than fair wear and tear. I consider there is insufficient evidence that the tenant’s would have been aware of the damaged shower lining and correlating leak. I therefore consider there is insufficient evidence that the tenant breached their obligation to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage or need for repair to the premises. I find the claim in respect of the shower damage is unproven and it is dismissed.

FILING FEE

As the landlord has partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $28. 13

BOND

The bond is to be paid to the landlord immediately to offset the amounts ordered.

SUPPRESSION

Neither party sought name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5322240 — net $905.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement: - A1 Locksmith invoice	$245.00	Lock/key replacement: - A1 Locksmith invoice
Rubbish removal: Waste management	$447.30	Rubbish removal: Waste management
Rubbish removal: Skip bins	$345.00	Rubbish removal: Skip bins
Carpet replacement	$550.00	Carpet replacement
Repairs: Wall repairs - painting	$1,250.00	Repairs: Wall repairs - painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$905.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$905.30

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] And Portfolio Management Limited $905.30 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
For ease of reference, I will refer to the tenants in the singular. The landlord’s property manager attended the hearing, and I will refer to the property manager as the landlord for ease of reference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenancy commenced in September 2020 and ended in June 2025.

PROCEDURAL NOTE

Initially [The tenant/s] tenant/s] attended the hearing by phone. She indicated she would attend for both tenants, however [The tenant/s] tenant/s] then joined the hearing on Karen’s phone and it appeared during the hearing that Karen was allowing Ruihi to attend for them both. Ruihi also asked for an adjournment as she said she had work however I declined to adjourn the matter as the tenant did not provide evidence prior to the hearing to confirm she had employment and had to attend work. Ruihi left the hearing a number of times during the hearing as she was unhappy about the claims being made. I endeavoured to call Ruihi back when she left the hearing, however ultimately, she did not remain until the end of the hearing and the hearing proceeded without both tenant’s attendance.
I note the landlord sought to provide evidence in relation to other work completed at the end of the tenancy. I declined to hear this evidence as I did not consider it relevant to the specific claims before the Tribunal.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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 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 1 , 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.”
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS AT THE END OF THE

TENANCY?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all his or her goods from the premises, 2 leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, 3 and remove all rubbish. 4

RUBBISH REMOVAL

The landlord claims the tenant did not remove all their rubbish.
Post-tenancy photographs provided by the landlord show the tenant did not remove all rubbish. Rubbish was left outside the premises and larger items were also left at the premises. The amount ordered for rubbish removal is proved with photographs, oral evidence, waste management receipts ($220 .50 and $226.80 – total $447.30) and an invoice for a skip bin ($345). KEY / LOCK REPLACMEENT
The tenant did not return the keys. The amount ordered is proved with an invoice for the locksmith ($245) and oral evidence.

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 See section 40 (1)(e) (ii) of the RTA. 3 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 4 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA.

A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 5 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 6
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 7
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). 8
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). 9 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 10
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. 11 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. 12
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

CARPET REPLACEMENT

The landlord claimed $550 being the insurance excess in respect of a claim for carpet replacement. The landlord said that while the insurance policy required 5 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 6 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 7 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 8 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 9 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 10 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 11 See section 49B(1) RTA. 12 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. an insurance excess be paid for each room the insurer had initially provided incorrect information that only one insurance excess was required and therefore the landlord was only required to pay the one insurance excess for this claim.
The landlord says the tenant’s damaged the carpet during the tenancy. The landlord says the tenant had 9 to 10 cats at the property which had urinated is every single room and the stains on the carpet were visible. This is noted in the outgoing inspection report and was confirmed by way of oral evidence. The landlord says in some areas the carpet was ripped or torn. The landlord says they tried cleaning the carpet however they had to be removed, as did the underlay. The landlord said the urine stains were so severe the wooden flooring under the underlay had also been stained. I consider this damage to likely have been intentional, given the tenant would likely have known that a number of cats in the home would cause significant urine damage.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord purchased the property in 2016 and the carpet was new and had just been installed when the property was purchased.
The carpet was approximately 9 years old by the end of the tenancy. The IR265 general depreciation rates states the useful lifespan of carpet is 8 years. In addition, some fair wear and tear should be expected. However, I also note from the ingoing inspection report that carpet appeared to be in good condition at the start of the tenancy. Therefore, I consider the landlord could have expected several more years of use from them.
I allowed the landlord the opportunity to provide confirmation of the total cost to replace the carpet following the hearing and the landlord provided confirmation from the insurer that the total cost to replace the carpet in the three bedrooms, one hallway and one living room was $4,773.90.
In taking in account betterment and depreciation I consider that it reasonable that the tenant pays the insurance excess of $550 to reflect the tenant’s breach. The amount ordered of $550 is proved with information from the insurance company, a pre-tenancy and post-tenancy report and oral evidence.

WALL PAINTING

The landlord says the walls throughout the premises were damaged during the tenancy.
The landlord provided ingoing and outgoing inspection report in support of the claim. There are various areas of wall damage throughout the premises, some of which appears to be intentional, and it appears the tenant has attempted to repair the damage, however has not done so to a reasonable standard. Other areas appear to have been the result of carelessness (ie the tenant accepted some of the damage arose when moving furniture) and other areas of damage appear to be the result of fair wear and tear.
Therefore, some of the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord claimed $145.45 for painting supplies and $5750 for labour for painting (total $5,895.45). The invoice from B & G Painting Limited did not itemise the tasks undertaken but records ‘Interior painting” was undertaken. I understand the lounge, 3 bedrooms and hallway (which had a small hole in the wall) were painted and the bathroom had some repairs undertaken, The landlord provided a more detailed invoice after the hearing. The landlord was not given the opportunity to file this new evidence after the hearing and I consider I cannot give it any weight. In any event, this additional evidence would not have altered the outcome of my decision as it does not itemise the value of different tasks undertaken.
The ceilings were also painted; however, the evidence does not indicate the ceilings were damaged, but rather that they were unclean.
The landlord has not made a claim for insurance to cover the damage. The landlord said that had they made a claim there would be numerous insurance excesses for each specific event of damage.
I must consider betterment and depreciation. I consider the general lifespan of painted walls in a rental property is between 8-12 years and therefore the landlords should reasonably expect to re-paint the interior every 8-12 years. In this case it has been 9 years since the premises had been painted.
The ingoing inspection report dated from August 2020 records general wear and tear on the walls throughout the premises.
In the absence of a clearly itemised invoice, I make a deduction of $895.45 to reflect the painting of the ceiling. I then reduce the balance by 75% to reflect betterment and depreciation and fair wear and tear. I award $1,250, which I consider reasonably compensates the landlord for the tenant’s breach.

SHOWER DAMAGE

The landlord claimed compensation to repair the shower.
The landlord said the shower wall lining had been split during the tenancy and it looked like a person’s knee had gone into the shower wall. The landlord explained that this damage was not picked up in the final inspection (and therefore not noted in the report) and it would not have been evident unless someone pushed on the wall. The landlord said the leak was discovered when the carpet was uplifted and there was water on the floorboards at which point the landlord undertook further investigation and found the damage to the shower wall lining. The landlord said the wood has not deteriorated however the shower lining required replacing.
The landlord said that the tenant has either caused the damage or failed to report the damage as an accident and is therefore liable for the repair.
The landlord suggested the hallway carpet would have been wet from the leak when using the shower, so the tenant should have known about the damage.
The landlord has not provided any photographs of the damage or the floorboards following the carpet being uplifted to illustrate the extent of the leak. While I accept that the shower lining may have had some damage that required repair, I am not satisfied on the evidence that the damage was more than fair wear and tear. I consider there is insufficient evidence that the tenant’s would have been aware of the damaged shower lining and correlating leak. I therefore consider there is insufficient evidence that the tenant breached their obligation to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage or need for repair to the premises. I find the claim in respect of the shower damage is unproven and it is dismissed.

FILING FEE

As the landlord has partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $28. 13

BOND

The bond is to be paid to the landlord immediately to offset the amounts ordered.

SUPPRESSION

Neither party sought name suppression.

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

PROCEDURAL NOTE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANCY?

RUBBISH REMOVAL

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

CARPET REPLACEMENT

WALL PAINTING

SHOWER DAMAGE

FILING FEE

BOND

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

PROCEDURAL NOTE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANCY?

RUBBISH REMOVAL

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

CARPET REPLACEMENT

WALL PAINTING

SHOWER DAMAGE

FILING FEE

BOND

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.