What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328979 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 5328979?

Cleaning: $204.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $20.00 awarded to landlord; 2x Holes Behind Doors: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Laundry Tub Door: $65.00 awarded to landlord; Replace carpet - insurances excess x…: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328979?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328979?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13519400-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328979 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 5328979?

Cleaning: $204.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $20.00 awarded to landlord; 2x Holes Behind Doors: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Laundry Tub Door: $65.00 awarded to landlord; Replace carpet - insurances excess x…: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328979?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328979?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13519400-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5328979 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5328979 — net $587.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$204.00	the amount ordered to fifty percent of the invoice and order the tenants to pay $204.00 towards cleaning.
Lock/key replacement: x 2 keys	$20.00	The Tribunal orders the lower end of this amount and orders the tenant to pay $20.00 for the cutting of two keys.
Repairs: Replace carpet - insurances excess x 5	$2,500.00	Repairs: Replace carpet - insurances excess x 5
Repairs: Laundry tub door	$65.00	Repairs: Laundry tub door
Repairs: 2x holes behind doors	$160.00	Repairs: 2x holes behind doors
Window repairs: Front window repair	$250.00	Window repairs: Front window repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$587.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$587.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of all parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $587.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The claims for rent arrears, rubbish removal and replacing light bulbs are withdrawn at the applicant’s request.
The remaining landlord claims are dismissed. DescriptionLandlord Cleaning$204.00 Lock/key replacement: x 2 keys$20.00 Repairs: Replace carpet - insurances excess x 5$2,500.00 Repairs: Laundry tub door$65.00 Repairs: 2x holes behind doors$160.00 Window repairs: Front window repair $250.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$3,227.00 Minus Bond$2,640.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$587.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 2 April 2026.
The matter was first part heard on 26 November 2025 and adjourned to 2 April 2026 for the tenant to consider the landlord’s application, for the filing of further evidence and for the tenants to file a cross application.
The tenants did not file a cross application.
Both parties brought further evidence to the hearing on the day and the Tribunal accepted this.
The tenants rented a five-bedroom house from the landlords. They lived in the home with their children for over five years from March 2020 until the tenancy ended in August 2025 after notice from the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claims are itemised as follows: (a)Rent arrears in the sum of $924.29 (b)Cleaning - $408.00 (c)Rubbish removal - $200.00 (d)Lock change - $220.00 (e)Missing chattels (picture/shelving) - $200.00 (f) Carpet damage - $4280.00 (g)Damages as listed in the [Building company] invoice - $1392.00 (h)Front door Window repair - $250 – agreed by tenants (i)Oven door replacement labour - $85.00
At the hearing on 2 April 2026 the landlord withdrew the claims for rent arrears, rubbish removal and light bulbs.

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 landlord claimed that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and sought the sum of $408.00 for cleaning. The tenants stated that they cleaned the premises. In respect of the cleaning claim the landlord provided photographs taken at the end of the tenancy of the bathroom basin and vanity and window sill which showed some cleaning needed and claimed the premises had a smell of dog. The invoice provided is generated by the landlord and records 10.5 hours total for three people and itemises “Final exit clean: Clean all walls, bathrooms, doors, window sills, laundry, skirting boards, lampshades”. The landlord stated that the three people were himself and his wife and the contractor from [building company], however, the landlord has not provided an invoice from [building company] for cleaning and did not have evidence of paying them for this. Having considered the evidence I find that some further cleaning was required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. As the invoice is for cleaning beyond the evidence provided and includes work done by a third person who did not invoice for this, I have reduced the amount ordered to fifty percent of the invoice and order the tenants to pay $204.00 towards cleaning.
The landlord claimed that four keys were provided at the beginning of the tenancy and only two keys returned at the end and sought the cost of a lock change. The tenancy agreement records that two sets of two keys were provided at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant agreed that only two keys were returned. At the hearing the landlord advised that the locks have not been changed and fresh keys were cut at a cost of $10-15 each. The Tribunal orders the lower end of this amount and orders the tenant to pay $20.00 for the cutting of two keys.
The landlord claimed that the following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: a picture and some shelving. The landlord did not provide clear entry and exit photographs of the same place showing the items present and then missing. The tenant denied removing these items. The landlord has not replaced the items. Having considered the evidence I find that there is insufficient evidence provided to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
The landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: (a) Carpet – the landlord claimed that there was damage to carpet in all five bedrooms and the hallway. Initially the landlord claim was for replacement cost of $4280.00 but at the hearing on 2 April the landlord sought the insurance excess of $500.00 per room for six rooms. The landlord provided entry photographs and exit inspection photographs. The exit photographs showed extensive marks and stains that were not there at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenants responded and agreed with some of the carpet damage but disputed the damage in the hallway. They claimed that this was caused by a leak in the bathroom that extended into the hallway. The photographs showed what appeared to be water marks extending into the hallway at the edge of the bathroom. The landlord accepted this but pointed to another mark in the hallway also which he claimed was caused by the tenant. The landlord produced insurance evidence which included an email from [insurance company] dated 1 April 2026 stating that “If there are five different rooms affected, and each room is associated with a separate and unrelated event... As a result, an excess of $500.00 applies to each event, meaning a $500 excess per room in this scenario”. Also included was a hand written note page recording carpet work to be done in six rooms. The landlord stated this hand written note was done by the assessor. Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord has proved damage caused by the tenant beyond fair wear and tear in the five bedrooms. Although there is some damage in the hallway, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is liable for an insurance excess for this room as there was also extensive leak damage to the carpet and the email from the insurance company only refers to insurance excess for five rooms. Therefore, I order the tenants to pay the insurance excess for five rooms times $500.00 which totals $2500.00. This amount is less than the cost of repair and less than four weeks rent. (b)Laundry tub door – the laundry tub door was replaced new during the tenancy and had come off at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accepts that the door had come off during the tenancy and it was left in the laundry. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The invoice provided does not itemise the cost of repair but as the door was present and just needed attachment I have allowed for 1 hour of the labour hours included at a rate of $65.00 and this will be ordered. (c)Window latches – the landlord sought replacement of 10 missing window latches, the exact rooms were not specified. The tenants responded that when they moved into the premises there was nothing to lock the bathroom window and the window frames were old. The entry inspection report does not contain photographs and although the landlord has ticked acceptable condition for all windows the tenants have not for the lounge and dining windows and it is recorded that there are cracks in the windows. As no entry and exit inspection photographs of window latches were provided and the parties evidence is in dispute I find that the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear. (d)French door window (front window) – The tenant agrees with this damage and the landlord has provided an invoice from [glass repair company] for the repair in the sum of $250.00. The amount is ordered as claimed. The invoice from [building company] contractors also includes work in respect of organising the repair, replacing a handle and bolt and removing screws holding the door closed. The cost of these matters are not itemised and I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved an amount or that this work is beyond maintenance at the end of the tenancy. (e)Smoke alarms – the landlord claimed that the smoke alarms were missing. The tenants stated they believed they were there at the end of the tenancy. The landlord did not provide an exit inspection report or photographs of the ceilings at the end of the tenancy showing the missing smoke alarms. I find that the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. (f) Door stops – the landlord claimed there were five missing door stops. There was insufficient evidence of the condition of the doorstops at the beginning of the tenancy to prove this was beyond fair wear and tear for a five year tenancy. (g)Holes in walls – the landlord claimed that there were holes in walls in bedroom three, bedroom four and bedroom five. Photographs of the damage were provided. The tenants agreed to the damage in bedrooms four and five and I am satisfied these claims are proved. As there was no entry photograph of the wall behind the door in bedroom three, I am not satisfied this claim is proved on the balance of probabilities. The [building company] invoice records $30 for materials for the wall repairs which is ordered, in addition I have ordered 2 hours work at the recorded rate of $65.00 per hour for the repairs totalling $160.00. (h)Hole in hallway – The landlord sought compensation for repair of a hole in the hallway beside the bathroom and provided a photograph. The tenants claimed that the hole was due to the gib being wet and rotten following the leak in the bathroom. Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenants caused this damage. (i)Finials on curtain rails – the landlord claimed that the end stoppers on the curtain rails were missing but did not provide entry and exit photographs in respect of this claim. I find that there is insufficient evidence to prove that this is beyond fair wear and tear. (j)Lampshades – the landlord claimed that three lampshades were missing but was not sure which rooms this related to and did not provide entry and exit photographs. I find this claim is not proved to the required standard. (k)Oven door – the landlord claimed that a part was missing from the oven door and sought the sum of $85.00 in compensation. The landlord stated the oven was five years old. The tenant stated that a piece that held the interior glass in place came loose as a result of use and that this was shown to the landlord at an inspection. The tenant continued to use the oven. When the landlord returned with screws to repair the door the part was missing. The parties agreed this occurred approximately two years ago and was not repaired by the end of the tenancy. The landlord advised that now they are unable to obtain the part for the repair. Having considered the evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved the damage is beyond fair wear and tear. Filing fee/Suppression
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord has applied for suppression and has been substantially successful with their claims. The tenant has also had some success in defending the claims. Having considered the factors in this case including the length of the tenancy and the previously good relationship between the parties I find that the interests of the parties outweigh any public interest in their names being published and order suppression of both parties’ identifying details in any publication of this order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5328979 — net $587.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$204.00	the amount ordered to fifty percent of the invoice and order the tenants to pay $204.00 towards cleaning.
Lock/key replacement: x 2 keys	$20.00	The Tribunal orders the lower end of this amount and orders the tenant to pay $20.00 for the cutting of two keys.
Repairs: Replace carpet - insurances excess x 5	$2,500.00	Repairs: Replace carpet - insurances excess x 5
Repairs: Laundry tub door	$65.00	Repairs: Laundry tub door
Repairs: 2x holes behind doors	$160.00	Repairs: 2x holes behind doors
Window repairs: Front window repair	$250.00	Window repairs: Front window repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$587.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$587.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of all parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $587.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The claims for rent arrears, rubbish removal and replacing light bulbs are withdrawn at the applicant’s request.
The remaining landlord claims are dismissed. DescriptionLandlord Cleaning$204.00 Lock/key replacement: x 2 keys$20.00 Repairs: Replace carpet - insurances excess x 5$2,500.00 Repairs: Laundry tub door$65.00 Repairs: 2x holes behind doors$160.00 Window repairs: Front window repair $250.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$3,227.00 Minus Bond$2,640.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$587.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 2 April 2026.
The matter was first part heard on 26 November 2025 and adjourned to 2 April 2026 for the tenant to consider the landlord’s application, for the filing of further evidence and for the tenants to file a cross application.
The tenants did not file a cross application.
Both parties brought further evidence to the hearing on the day and the Tribunal accepted this.
The tenants rented a five-bedroom house from the landlords. They lived in the home with their children for over five years from March 2020 until the tenancy ended in August 2025 after notice from the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claims are itemised as follows: (a)Rent arrears in the sum of $924.29 (b)Cleaning - $408.00 (c)Rubbish removal - $200.00 (d)Lock change - $220.00 (e)Missing chattels (picture/shelving) - $200.00 (f) Carpet damage - $4280.00 (g)Damages as listed in the [Building company] invoice - $1392.00 (h)Front door Window repair - $250 – agreed by tenants (i)Oven door replacement labour - $85.00
At the hearing on 2 April 2026 the landlord withdrew the claims for rent arrears, rubbish removal and light bulbs.

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 landlord claimed that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and sought the sum of $408.00 for cleaning. The tenants stated that they cleaned the premises. In respect of the cleaning claim the landlord provided photographs taken at the end of the tenancy of the bathroom basin and vanity and window sill which showed some cleaning needed and claimed the premises had a smell of dog. The invoice provided is generated by the landlord and records 10.5 hours total for three people and itemises “Final exit clean: Clean all walls, bathrooms, doors, window sills, laundry, skirting boards, lampshades”. The landlord stated that the three people were himself and his wife and the contractor from [building company], however, the landlord has not provided an invoice from [building company] for cleaning and did not have evidence of paying them for this. Having considered the evidence I find that some further cleaning was required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. As the invoice is for cleaning beyond the evidence provided and includes work done by a third person who did not invoice for this, I have reduced the amount ordered to fifty percent of the invoice and order the tenants to pay $204.00 towards cleaning.
The landlord claimed that four keys were provided at the beginning of the tenancy and only two keys returned at the end and sought the cost of a lock change. The tenancy agreement records that two sets of two keys were provided at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant agreed that only two keys were returned. At the hearing the landlord advised that the locks have not been changed and fresh keys were cut at a cost of $10-15 each. The Tribunal orders the lower end of this amount and orders the tenant to pay $20.00 for the cutting of two keys.
The landlord claimed that the following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: a picture and some shelving. The landlord did not provide clear entry and exit photographs of the same place showing the items present and then missing. The tenant denied removing these items. The landlord has not replaced the items. Having considered the evidence I find that there is insufficient evidence provided to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
The landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: (a) Carpet – the landlord claimed that there was damage to carpet in all five bedrooms and the hallway. Initially the landlord claim was for replacement cost of $4280.00 but at the hearing on 2 April the landlord sought the insurance excess of $500.00 per room for six rooms. The landlord provided entry photographs and exit inspection photographs. The exit photographs showed extensive marks and stains that were not there at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenants responded and agreed with some of the carpet damage but disputed the damage in the hallway. They claimed that this was caused by a leak in the bathroom that extended into the hallway. The photographs showed what appeared to be water marks extending into the hallway at the edge of the bathroom. The landlord accepted this but pointed to another mark in the hallway also which he claimed was caused by the tenant. The landlord produced insurance evidence which included an email from [insurance company] dated 1 April 2026 stating that “If there are five different rooms affected, and each room is associated with a separate and unrelated event... As a result, an excess of $500.00 applies to each event, meaning a $500 excess per room in this scenario”. Also included was a hand written note page recording carpet work to be done in six rooms. The landlord stated this hand written note was done by the assessor. Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord has proved damage caused by the tenant beyond fair wear and tear in the five bedrooms. Although there is some damage in the hallway, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is liable for an insurance excess for this room as there was also extensive leak damage to the carpet and the email from the insurance company only refers to insurance excess for five rooms. Therefore, I order the tenants to pay the insurance excess for five rooms times $500.00 which totals $2500.00. This amount is less than the cost of repair and less than four weeks rent. (b)Laundry tub door – the laundry tub door was replaced new during the tenancy and had come off at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accepts that the door had come off during the tenancy and it was left in the laundry. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The invoice provided does not itemise the cost of repair but as the door was present and just needed attachment I have allowed for 1 hour of the labour hours included at a rate of $65.00 and this will be ordered. (c)Window latches – the landlord sought replacement of 10 missing window latches, the exact rooms were not specified. The tenants responded that when they moved into the premises there was nothing to lock the bathroom window and the window frames were old. The entry inspection report does not contain photographs and although the landlord has ticked acceptable condition for all windows the tenants have not for the lounge and dining windows and it is recorded that there are cracks in the windows. As no entry and exit inspection photographs of window latches were provided and the parties evidence is in dispute I find that the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear. (d)French door window (front window) – The tenant agrees with this damage and the landlord has provided an invoice from [glass repair company] for the repair in the sum of $250.00. The amount is ordered as claimed. The invoice from [building company] contractors also includes work in respect of organising the repair, replacing a handle and bolt and removing screws holding the door closed. The cost of these matters are not itemised and I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved an amount or that this work is beyond maintenance at the end of the tenancy. (e)Smoke alarms – the landlord claimed that the smoke alarms were missing. The tenants stated they believed they were there at the end of the tenancy. The landlord did not provide an exit inspection report or photographs of the ceilings at the end of the tenancy showing the missing smoke alarms. I find that the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. (f) Door stops – the landlord claimed there were five missing door stops. There was insufficient evidence of the condition of the doorstops at the beginning of the tenancy to prove this was beyond fair wear and tear for a five year tenancy. (g)Holes in walls – the landlord claimed that there were holes in walls in bedroom three, bedroom four and bedroom five. Photographs of the damage were provided. The tenants agreed to the damage in bedrooms four and five and I am satisfied these claims are proved. As there was no entry photograph of the wall behind the door in bedroom three, I am not satisfied this claim is proved on the balance of probabilities. The [building company] invoice records $30 for materials for the wall repairs which is ordered, in addition I have ordered 2 hours work at the recorded rate of $65.00 per hour for the repairs totalling $160.00. (h)Hole in hallway – The landlord sought compensation for repair of a hole in the hallway beside the bathroom and provided a photograph. The tenants claimed that the hole was due to the gib being wet and rotten following the leak in the bathroom. Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenants caused this damage. (i)Finials on curtain rails – the landlord claimed that the end stoppers on the curtain rails were missing but did not provide entry and exit photographs in respect of this claim. I find that there is insufficient evidence to prove that this is beyond fair wear and tear. (j)Lampshades – the landlord claimed that three lampshades were missing but was not sure which rooms this related to and did not provide entry and exit photographs. I find this claim is not proved to the required standard. (k)Oven door – the landlord claimed that a part was missing from the oven door and sought the sum of $85.00 in compensation. The landlord stated the oven was five years old. The tenant stated that a piece that held the interior glass in place came loose as a result of use and that this was shown to the landlord at an inspection. The tenant continued to use the oven. When the landlord returned with screws to repair the door the part was missing. The parties agreed this occurred approximately two years ago and was not repaired by the end of the tenancy. The landlord advised that now they are unable to obtain the part for the repair. Having considered the evidence I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved the damage is beyond fair wear and tear. Filing fee/Suppression
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord has applied for suppression and has been substantially successful with their claims. The tenant has also had some success in defending the claims. Having considered the factors in this case including the length of the tenancy and the previously good relationship between the parties I find that the interests of the parties outweigh any public interest in their names being published and order suppression of both parties’ identifying details in any publication of this order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328979 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328979 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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