What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343912 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 5343912?

Breach Of Neighbour'S Quiet Enjoymen…: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Electricity Charges (September 2025…: $31.54 awarded to landlord; Failure To Allow Reasonable Access: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $39.90 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,428.57 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $340.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343912?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343912?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13310857-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343912 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 5343912?

Breach Of Neighbour'S Quiet Enjoymen…: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Electricity Charges (September 2025…: $31.54 awarded to landlord; Failure To Allow Reasonable Access: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $39.90 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,428.57 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $340.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343912?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343912?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13310857-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5343912 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343912 — net $2,590.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1/10/2025	$1,428.57	Rent arrears to 1/10/2025
Cleaning (half of invoice	$150.00	Cleaning (half of invoice
Rubbish removal	$340.00	Rubbish removal
Electricity charges (September 2025 only	$31.54	Electricity charges (September 2025 only
Hot plate replacement	$39.90	Hot plate replacement
Breach of neighbour's quiet enjoyment	$500.00	Breach of neighbour's quiet enjoyment
Failure to allow reasonable access	$100.00	Failure to allow reasonable access
Net award	$2,590.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,590.01

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord names and identifying details.
Zane Fidow must pay [The landlord/s] $2,540.01 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 1/10/2025$1,428.57 Cleaning (half of invoice)$150.00 Rubbish removal$340.00 Electricity charges (September 2025 only)$31.54 Hot plate replacement$39.90 Breach of neighbour's quiet enjoyment$500.00 Failure to allow reasonable access$100.00 Total award$2,590.01 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,590.01
The claim for fence repairs is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord’s advised that the tenant rented a 2-bedroom self-contained unit on the landlord’s property and lived there from 22 August 2025 October 2025.
The landlord advised there was no bond paid.
A dispute arose between the parties and the tenant gave notice to terminate. The tenancy ended on 1 October 2025.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant did not attend the hearing to give their evidence or file any response to these claims.

How much is owed for rent and electricity?

The tenancy ended on 1 October 2025 after the tenant gave 21 days’ notice.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy in the sum of $1428.57.
Tenants are liable for utility charges that are exclusively attributable to their usage. The landlord provided proof of the electricity used by the tenant in September 2025 and this amount of $31.54 is ordered. There was insufficient evidence provided for the August charges, so these are not ordered.

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 did not remove all rubbish. Photographs and a cleaning invoice for $300 and proof of rubbish removal charges of $340 were provided.
I have considered the exit photographs and find that the landlord has proved that the carpet and floors were not left reasonably clean and tidy and there was rubbish left at the premises. The cleaning invoice also claims cleaning of the bedrooms and bathroom but there was insufficient evidence that these were not left reasonably clean and tidy. I order the tenant to reimburse the rubbish removal cost of $340 and half of the cleaning cost being $150.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claimed the following damage was caused during the tenancy: (a)Damage to hot plate. The landlord provided proof of the purchase of a new hotplate on 10 August 2025 and photographs of the damaged hotplate at the end of the tenancy. The landlords seek $42 for the replacement. I am satisfied that the landlords have proved the hotplate was damaged during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. As appliances have a lifespan of approximately 4 years and the appliance was approximately two months old I have depreciated the amount ordered by 5 percent and order payment of $39.90. (b)Damage to fence. The landlord provided photographs of the fence showing the palings had come apart from one of the posts and photographs of wood and other items against the fence which they stated belonged to the tenant. The landlords also provided a quote from a builder who did not attend the premises but looked at a photograph. The landlord did not provide evidence of the age or condition of the fence at the commencement of the tenancy and advised that the repair has not yet been done. The quote provided by [Fencing company] is not a specific quote but general information about their callout charge and hourly rates. As there is insufficient evidence of the entry condition and of the cost to remedy, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claim is proved. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. (c) The landlord also claimed that the tenant’s dog damaged their front door. As this is not damage to the tenant premises it is not covered by section 40(2)(a) of the RTA. If the landlords wish to pursue this claim they may choose to pursue it as a general civil claim against the tenant.

Did the tenant breach the quiet enjoyment of the neighbours?

The landlords live in a dwelling next to the tenant’s premises and claim that the tenant has disturbed them as neighbours, in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is no provision under the Act for breach of quiet enjoyment of landlords, however, in this case the landlords are also neighbours, and the Act does contain responsibilities that the tenant has to their neighbours.
A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The landlord lived next door to the tenant. The landlord has provided evidence of two police reports due to threatening and abusive messages received from the tenant on 19 and 22 September 2025. The landlord has provided copies of the inappropriate and abusive messages sent of these two days. The landlord advised that the tenant threw eggs at their windows and provided photographs of the eggs on the windows.
I find on the balance of probabilities that the tenant’s behaviour has interfered with the reasonable peace and comfort of his neighbours.
As this tenancy was only for a short period of time and the incidents occurred over a short period of a couple of weeks I find that they are not a pattern of behaviour amounting to harassment but the behaviour is a breach of the tenant’s obligations. Compensation
The Tribunal can order a landlord to pay such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any provision of the Residential Tenancies Act (section 77(2)(n)).
The Tenants’ claim for compensation is in the nature of general damages for the stress and distress caused by the tenant’s behaviour and the time off work as a result. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to make such award pursuant to section 77(2)(n) of the Act: Eayrs v Hindmarsh, DC Wellington, TT223/93, 12 November 1993. Awards of compensation are generally modest.
Having considered all the evidence provided including the behaviour towards the neighbours, the context that the neighbours were also the landlords who were in a dispute with their tenant I find that an award of general compensation is appropriate. There is no exact formula for calculating an award of compensation however I have taken in account the factors mentioned and the short length of this tenancy and find that an order for $500.00 compensation is appropriate.

A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant must not withhold his or her consent unreasonably. See section 48(3A) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord gave notice as follows: (a)On a Wednesday in September 2025 the landlord gave the tenant 24 hours’ notice for the purpose of a builder entering. The tenant replied that he would not be home and sought to reschedule, and the landlord agreed. I find that this was reasonable and a mutually agreed reschedule was discussed. (b)On Thursday 11 September 2025 the landlord gave 24 hours’ notice of entry for electrical work to be done at the property on 12 September 2025. The landlord stated this was in response to a request from the tenant for maintenance to repair an electrical faceplate in the bathroom. The message gave notice of the intended entry and the reason for it being electrical work. The tenant replied requesting further information regarding the electrical work and the landlord responded the bathroom would be accessed. The tenant also sought contact details of anyone who would be present. When the landlord did not agree to provide these the tenant refused entry. The tenant’s request went beyond the requirements of the notice required under the RTA. I find that in refusing to allow the landlord entry to undertake maintenance requested by them they have unreasonably withheld consent and committed an unlawful act. (c)On 15 September 2025 the landlord gave the tenant notice of an inspection to take place on 18 September 2025. The landlord informed the tenant who would attend and the reason for the entry but again the tenant required contact details of the support person attending with the landlord and this was not provided. When the landlord arrived at the premises the tenant denied the landlord entry. I find that in refusing to allow the landlord entry to undertake an inspection notified to them the tenant has unreasonably withheld consent and committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided copies of the text messages and a video of the visit on 18 September 2025. I am satisfied from the evidence that the tenant intentionally withheld consent to the entry on 12 September and refused entry on 18 September 2025.
The effect of the unlawful act on the landlord was small as the tenant had already given notice and the tenancy was ending on 1 October 2025.
There is a public interest in parties honouring their obligations under the Act. Landlords have an obligation to give notice lawfully and to maintain the premises. Tenants have an obligation to notify landlords of maintenance and then must be reasonable in allowing landlords access to get the work done.
I order the tenant to pay exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale in the sum of $50 for each of the two occasions that entry was unreasonably refused after notice was given totalling $100. Filing fee/ Suppression
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and suppressed the landlord details in the order as applied for. See sections 102(4) and 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343912 — net $2,590.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1/10/2025	$1,428.57	Rent arrears to 1/10/2025
Cleaning (half of invoice	$150.00	Cleaning (half of invoice
Rubbish removal	$340.00	Rubbish removal
Electricity charges (September 2025 only	$31.54	Electricity charges (September 2025 only
Hot plate replacement	$39.90	Hot plate replacement
Breach of neighbour's quiet enjoyment	$500.00	Breach of neighbour's quiet enjoyment
Failure to allow reasonable access	$100.00	Failure to allow reasonable access
Net award	$2,590.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,590.01

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord names and identifying details.
Zane Fidow must pay [The landlord/s] $2,540.01 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 1/10/2025$1,428.57 Cleaning (half of invoice)$150.00 Rubbish removal$340.00 Electricity charges (September 2025 only)$31.54 Hot plate replacement$39.90 Breach of neighbour's quiet enjoyment$500.00 Failure to allow reasonable access$100.00 Total award$2,590.01 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,590.01
The claim for fence repairs is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord’s advised that the tenant rented a 2-bedroom self-contained unit on the landlord’s property and lived there from 22 August 2025 October 2025.
The landlord advised there was no bond paid.
A dispute arose between the parties and the tenant gave notice to terminate. The tenancy ended on 1 October 2025.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant did not attend the hearing to give their evidence or file any response to these claims.

How much is owed for rent and electricity?

The tenancy ended on 1 October 2025 after the tenant gave 21 days’ notice.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy in the sum of $1428.57.
Tenants are liable for utility charges that are exclusively attributable to their usage. The landlord provided proof of the electricity used by the tenant in September 2025 and this amount of $31.54 is ordered. There was insufficient evidence provided for the August charges, so these are not ordered.

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 did not remove all rubbish. Photographs and a cleaning invoice for $300 and proof of rubbish removal charges of $340 were provided.
I have considered the exit photographs and find that the landlord has proved that the carpet and floors were not left reasonably clean and tidy and there was rubbish left at the premises. The cleaning invoice also claims cleaning of the bedrooms and bathroom but there was insufficient evidence that these were not left reasonably clean and tidy. I order the tenant to reimburse the rubbish removal cost of $340 and half of the cleaning cost being $150.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claimed the following damage was caused during the tenancy: (a)Damage to hot plate. The landlord provided proof of the purchase of a new hotplate on 10 August 2025 and photographs of the damaged hotplate at the end of the tenancy. The landlords seek $42 for the replacement. I am satisfied that the landlords have proved the hotplate was damaged during the tenancy and the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. As appliances have a lifespan of approximately 4 years and the appliance was approximately two months old I have depreciated the amount ordered by 5 percent and order payment of $39.90. (b)Damage to fence. The landlord provided photographs of the fence showing the palings had come apart from one of the posts and photographs of wood and other items against the fence which they stated belonged to the tenant. The landlords also provided a quote from a builder who did not attend the premises but looked at a photograph. The landlord did not provide evidence of the age or condition of the fence at the commencement of the tenancy and advised that the repair has not yet been done. The quote provided by [Fencing company] is not a specific quote but general information about their callout charge and hourly rates. As there is insufficient evidence of the entry condition and of the cost to remedy, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claim is proved. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. (c) The landlord also claimed that the tenant’s dog damaged their front door. As this is not damage to the tenant premises it is not covered by section 40(2)(a) of the RTA. If the landlords wish to pursue this claim they may choose to pursue it as a general civil claim against the tenant.

Did the tenant breach the quiet enjoyment of the neighbours?

The landlords live in a dwelling next to the tenant’s premises and claim that the tenant has disturbed them as neighbours, in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is no provision under the Act for breach of quiet enjoyment of landlords, however, in this case the landlords are also neighbours, and the Act does contain responsibilities that the tenant has to their neighbours.
A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The landlord lived next door to the tenant. The landlord has provided evidence of two police reports due to threatening and abusive messages received from the tenant on 19 and 22 September 2025. The landlord has provided copies of the inappropriate and abusive messages sent of these two days. The landlord advised that the tenant threw eggs at their windows and provided photographs of the eggs on the windows.
I find on the balance of probabilities that the tenant’s behaviour has interfered with the reasonable peace and comfort of his neighbours.
As this tenancy was only for a short period of time and the incidents occurred over a short period of a couple of weeks I find that they are not a pattern of behaviour amounting to harassment but the behaviour is a breach of the tenant’s obligations. Compensation
The Tribunal can order a landlord to pay such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any provision of the Residential Tenancies Act (section 77(2)(n)).
The Tenants’ claim for compensation is in the nature of general damages for the stress and distress caused by the tenant’s behaviour and the time off work as a result. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to make such award pursuant to section 77(2)(n) of the Act: Eayrs v Hindmarsh, DC Wellington, TT223/93, 12 November 1993. Awards of compensation are generally modest.
Having considered all the evidence provided including the behaviour towards the neighbours, the context that the neighbours were also the landlords who were in a dispute with their tenant I find that an award of general compensation is appropriate. There is no exact formula for calculating an award of compensation however I have taken in account the factors mentioned and the short length of this tenancy and find that an order for $500.00 compensation is appropriate.

A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant must not withhold his or her consent unreasonably. See section 48(3A) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord gave notice as follows: (a)On a Wednesday in September 2025 the landlord gave the tenant 24 hours’ notice for the purpose of a builder entering. The tenant replied that he would not be home and sought to reschedule, and the landlord agreed. I find that this was reasonable and a mutually agreed reschedule was discussed. (b)On Thursday 11 September 2025 the landlord gave 24 hours’ notice of entry for electrical work to be done at the property on 12 September 2025. The landlord stated this was in response to a request from the tenant for maintenance to repair an electrical faceplate in the bathroom. The message gave notice of the intended entry and the reason for it being electrical work. The tenant replied requesting further information regarding the electrical work and the landlord responded the bathroom would be accessed. The tenant also sought contact details of anyone who would be present. When the landlord did not agree to provide these the tenant refused entry. The tenant’s request went beyond the requirements of the notice required under the RTA. I find that in refusing to allow the landlord entry to undertake maintenance requested by them they have unreasonably withheld consent and committed an unlawful act. (c)On 15 September 2025 the landlord gave the tenant notice of an inspection to take place on 18 September 2025. The landlord informed the tenant who would attend and the reason for the entry but again the tenant required contact details of the support person attending with the landlord and this was not provided. When the landlord arrived at the premises the tenant denied the landlord entry. I find that in refusing to allow the landlord entry to undertake an inspection notified to them the tenant has unreasonably withheld consent and committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided copies of the text messages and a video of the visit on 18 September 2025. I am satisfied from the evidence that the tenant intentionally withheld consent to the entry on 12 September and refused entry on 18 September 2025.
The effect of the unlawful act on the landlord was small as the tenant had already given notice and the tenancy was ending on 1 October 2025.
There is a public interest in parties honouring their obligations under the Act. Landlords have an obligation to give notice lawfully and to maintain the premises. Tenants have an obligation to notify landlords of maintenance and then must be reasonable in allowing landlords access to get the work done.
I order the tenant to pay exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale in the sum of $50 for each of the two occasions that entry was unreasonably refused after notice was given totalling $100. Filing fee/ Suppression
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and suppressed the landlord details in the order as applied for. See sections 102(4) and 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343912 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343912 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and electricity?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant breach the quiet enjoyment of the neighbours?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and electricity?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant breach the quiet enjoyment of the neighbours?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and electricity?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant breach the quiet enjoyment of the neighbours?

Did the tenant unreasonably withhold consent to landlord entry of the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and electricity?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant breach the quiet enjoyment of the neighbours?

Did the tenant unreasonably withhold consent to landlord entry of the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions