What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5344281 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 5344281?

Break Lease Fees: $105.00 awarded to landlord; Bug Bombs: $37.38 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $240.35 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Labour For Clearing Property: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,436.43 awarded to landlord; Replace T.V. Wall Brackets X 2: $111.98 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $102.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5344281?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5344281?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12830330-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5344281 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 5344281?

Break Lease Fees: $105.00 awarded to landlord; Bug Bombs: $37.38 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $240.35 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Labour For Clearing Property: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,436.43 awarded to landlord; Replace T.V. Wall Brackets X 2: $111.98 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $102.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5344281?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5344281?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12830330-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

13 Ara Kakara Avenue, Huapai, Kumeu 0810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5344281 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5344281 — net $2,539.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 8 October 2025	$4,436.43	Rent arrears (to 8 October 2025
Water rates: to 8 October 2025	$102.28	Water rates: to 8 October 2025
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$240.35	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$140.00	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement	$276.00	Lock/key replacement
Bug bombs	$37.38	Bug bombs
Labour for clearing property	$70.00	Labour for clearing property
Replace T.V. wall brackets x 2	$111.98	Replace T.V. wall brackets x 2
Break lease fees	$105.00	Break lease fees
Net award	$2,539.42
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,539.42

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Susan Elizabeth Hegley and Dion Edward Hill must pay [The landlord/s] $2,539.42 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

On 15 September 2025 the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears, water rates, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. [Property Manager], Property Manager appeared for the landlord. Mr Hill appeared. Unsuccessful attempts were made to join Ms Hegley to the hearing by telephone. The Tribunal was satisfied that the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in her absence. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant 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. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 5 July 2025 with the fixed term due to end on 3 July 2026.
On or around 8 July 2025 Mr Hill said his relationship with Ms Hegley ended and he left the property. Mr Hill accepts that he remains jointly and severally liable for the debts under the tenancy agreement as he was never formally removed from the tenancy.
The parties agreed to end the fixed term early and the tenancy ended on 8 October 2025.
The Tribunal was told that Mr Hill has been co-operating with the landlord resolve all of the issues outstanding at the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 8 October 2025. The landlord provided up to date rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy totalled $4,436.43. The amount claimed is ordered.
The landlord seeks outstanding water rates to 8 October 2025 totalling $102.28 and provided a tenant invoice for the amount claimed. The Tribunal notes the following. a. The ingoing water reading was 1664. b. The outgoing water reading was 1708. c. The total amount of water used was 44 cubic meters. d. The tenant made two payments towards the water rates. At the date of hearing there is an outstanding water rates balance was $102.28.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the landlord has properly demanded payment of the water rates and the amount of $102.28 remains outstanding. The amount claimed is 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) of the Act.

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord seeks $500.00 after paying a contractor to clean the property to a reasonably clean and tidy standard following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord and Mr Hill agreed the property was provided in a clean and tidy condition at the commencement of the tenancy, fee from rubbish.
The landlord provided exit inspection photographs showing the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal notes the following: a. The oven contained food detritus and had not been wiped clean. b. The kitchen cupboards and draws had not been emptied and wiped clean. c. The kitchen bench and sink were soiled and had been wiped clean. d. The kitchen rubbish bins were marked and had not been wiped clean. e. The carpets had not been vacuumed and the hard flooring had not been swept and mopped. f. The bathroom vanity and tap were marked and had not been wiped clean. g. The showers were soiled and had not been cleaned. h. The garage floor had not been swept. i. The laundry area had not been tidied and cleaned. j. Some of the walls were marked and had not been wiped clean.
Mr Hill acknowledged the property had not been returned to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and did not dispute the amount claimed.
The Act does not require the premises to be returned in immaculate condition – only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. What is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available – particularly photographs presented, and then consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean. 1
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenants failed to return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and the amount claimed is ordered. Carpet Cleaning
The landlord seeks $240.35 for carpet cleaning costs following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord states that the tenants had two cats and two dogs living at the property. At the end of the tenancy there was a lingering pet odour that required professional cleaning to remove.
Mr Hill does not dispute the amount claimed, acknowledging there was animals living in the property.
Having heard from both parties, and in particular Mr Hill who accepted liability for the cost of professional carpet cleaning to eradicate pet odours, the Tribunal orders the amount claimed. Lawns and gardens
The landlord seeks $70.00 for lawn mowing costs and $70.00 for garden weeding and kitty litter removal from the garden beds following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord states the lawns and gardens were provided in a clean and tidy condition. The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy the lawns were overgrown, and the garden beds contained weeds and kitty litter from improper 1 Bevan Realty Limited – As Agent for Xian Jian Chew v Kristian Pilgrim [2025] NZTT 5153354 disposal of pet waste. The landlord paid a contractor $70 to mow the lawns and an invoice in the amount claimed was provided. The landlord said that owners of the property weeded and tidied the garden beds, removing the kitty litter, and seek $70.00 labour costs. The landlord provided a tenant invoice proving the amount claimed.
Mr Hill acknowledged that when they moved into the property the lawns had been mown and the garden beds were tidy. Mr Hill did not dispute the amount claimed.
The exit inspection photographs provided by the landlord show that at the end of the tenancy the lawns were long, and the garden beds had not been weeded and contained kitty litter.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenants failed to return the lawns and gardens in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and the amount claimed is ordered.

Did the tenant return all keys and security devices?

The landlord seeks compensation of $209.00 after paying a contractor to change the locks and $67.00 for a replacement garage door remote after the tenant failed to return the keys and security devices at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided evidence in the form e-mails to the tenant asking her on multiple occasions to return the keys and garage door remotes which did not happen. The landlord told the Tribunal that as a result, the decision was made to change the locks to secure the property.
The Tribunal is satisfied the tenant failed to return all keys and garage door remotes at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered. Bug bombs
The landlord seeks $37.38 after releasing six bug bombs in the property to address to kill a flea infestation they say was caused by the tenant’s pets.
The landlord said the bug bomb treatment occurred prior to the carpets being professionally cleaned.
Mr Hill does not dispute there was a flea infestation in the property and accepted liability for the cost.
The amount claimed is ordered. Labour costs for clearing the property remaining items
The landlord seeks compensation of $70.00 for labour costs to remove items left behind at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenant failed to remove all of their belongings and provided exit inspection photographs showing a large number of items remaining in the property at the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal was told that the landlord moved all of these items into the garage (including, but not limited to, a couch, side table, bedding, pillows, a chair, petrol container, cleaning products, plus various other items) which Mr Hill later collected and disposed of.
Mr Hill did not dispute that items were left behind at the end of the tenancy or the labour charge sought.
The Tribunal notes the e-mail exchange between the parties where the landlord asked the tenant on multiple occasions to remove their belongings.
Having heard from both parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that it is appropriate to award the landlord $70.00 labour cost for clearing the property of the tenant’s remaining possessions.

Did the tenant leave all chattels behind at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks compensation of $111.98 the cost of replacing two wall mounted television brackets that were missing at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided pre-tenancy inspection photographs which prove the master bedroom and lounge were provided with wall mounted television brackets at the commencement of the tenancy.
The end of tenancy photographs show the wall mounted television brackets were missing at the end of the tenancy. This was not disputed by Mr Hill.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the wall mounted television brackets were missing at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered. Is the tenant responsible for re-letting costs
The landlord seeks re-letting costs of $105.00 after the parties agreed to end the fixed term early. The landlord states that the reletting costs are detailed in the tenancy agreement, which the tenant agreed to pay. The tenant has paid $139.00 for the advertising cost. The amount claimed is the cost of holding property viewings.
The landlord said that as a gesture of good will they did not charge the tenant the administration fee.
Section 50(1)(d) of the Act states that tenancies may be terminated where the tenant surrenders the tenancy, or delivers up vacant possession of the premises, to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent.
Section 44A(1) of the Act states that landlords are entitled to recover from the tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the termination of the tenancy.
The tenant previously accepted liability for the break lease costs. The Tribunal finds that the costs have been reasonably incurred by the landlord and the amounts claimed are ordered. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord seeks name suppression. Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
In this case the landlord has been wholly successful and is granted name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5344281 — net $2,539.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 8 October 2025	$4,436.43	Rent arrears (to 8 October 2025
Water rates: to 8 October 2025	$102.28	Water rates: to 8 October 2025
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$240.35	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$140.00	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement	$276.00	Lock/key replacement
Bug bombs	$37.38	Bug bombs
Labour for clearing property	$70.00	Labour for clearing property
Replace T.V. wall brackets x 2	$111.98	Replace T.V. wall brackets x 2
Break lease fees	$105.00	Break lease fees
Net award	$2,539.42
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,539.42

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Susan Elizabeth Hegley and Dion Edward Hill must pay [The landlord/s] $2,539.42 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

On 15 September 2025 the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears, water rates, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. [Property Manager], Property Manager appeared for the landlord. Mr Hill appeared. Unsuccessful attempts were made to join Ms Hegley to the hearing by telephone. The Tribunal was satisfied that the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in her absence. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant 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. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 5 July 2025 with the fixed term due to end on 3 July 2026.
On or around 8 July 2025 Mr Hill said his relationship with Ms Hegley ended and he left the property. Mr Hill accepts that he remains jointly and severally liable for the debts under the tenancy agreement as he was never formally removed from the tenancy.
The parties agreed to end the fixed term early and the tenancy ended on 8 October 2025.
The Tribunal was told that Mr Hill has been co-operating with the landlord resolve all of the issues outstanding at the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 8 October 2025. The landlord provided up to date rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy totalled $4,436.43. The amount claimed is ordered.
The landlord seeks outstanding water rates to 8 October 2025 totalling $102.28 and provided a tenant invoice for the amount claimed. The Tribunal notes the following. a. The ingoing water reading was 1664. b. The outgoing water reading was 1708. c. The total amount of water used was 44 cubic meters. d. The tenant made two payments towards the water rates. At the date of hearing there is an outstanding water rates balance was $102.28.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the landlord has properly demanded payment of the water rates and the amount of $102.28 remains outstanding. The amount claimed is 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) of the Act.

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord seeks $500.00 after paying a contractor to clean the property to a reasonably clean and tidy standard following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord and Mr Hill agreed the property was provided in a clean and tidy condition at the commencement of the tenancy, fee from rubbish.
The landlord provided exit inspection photographs showing the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal notes the following: a. The oven contained food detritus and had not been wiped clean. b. The kitchen cupboards and draws had not been emptied and wiped clean. c. The kitchen bench and sink were soiled and had been wiped clean. d. The kitchen rubbish bins were marked and had not been wiped clean. e. The carpets had not been vacuumed and the hard flooring had not been swept and mopped. f. The bathroom vanity and tap were marked and had not been wiped clean. g. The showers were soiled and had not been cleaned. h. The garage floor had not been swept. i. The laundry area had not been tidied and cleaned. j. Some of the walls were marked and had not been wiped clean.
Mr Hill acknowledged the property had not been returned to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and did not dispute the amount claimed.
The Act does not require the premises to be returned in immaculate condition – only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. What is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available – particularly photographs presented, and then consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean. 1
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenants failed to return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and the amount claimed is ordered. Carpet Cleaning
The landlord seeks $240.35 for carpet cleaning costs following the end of the tenancy. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord states that the tenants had two cats and two dogs living at the property. At the end of the tenancy there was a lingering pet odour that required professional cleaning to remove.
Mr Hill does not dispute the amount claimed, acknowledging there was animals living in the property.
Having heard from both parties, and in particular Mr Hill who accepted liability for the cost of professional carpet cleaning to eradicate pet odours, the Tribunal orders the amount claimed. Lawns and gardens
The landlord seeks $70.00 for lawn mowing costs and $70.00 for garden weeding and kitty litter removal from the garden beds following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord states the lawns and gardens were provided in a clean and tidy condition. The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy the lawns were overgrown, and the garden beds contained weeds and kitty litter from improper 1 Bevan Realty Limited – As Agent for Xian Jian Chew v Kristian Pilgrim [2025] NZTT 5153354 disposal of pet waste. The landlord paid a contractor $70 to mow the lawns and an invoice in the amount claimed was provided. The landlord said that owners of the property weeded and tidied the garden beds, removing the kitty litter, and seek $70.00 labour costs. The landlord provided a tenant invoice proving the amount claimed.
Mr Hill acknowledged that when they moved into the property the lawns had been mown and the garden beds were tidy. Mr Hill did not dispute the amount claimed.
The exit inspection photographs provided by the landlord show that at the end of the tenancy the lawns were long, and the garden beds had not been weeded and contained kitty litter.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenants failed to return the lawns and gardens in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and the amount claimed is ordered.

Did the tenant return all keys and security devices?

The landlord seeks compensation of $209.00 after paying a contractor to change the locks and $67.00 for a replacement garage door remote after the tenant failed to return the keys and security devices at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided evidence in the form e-mails to the tenant asking her on multiple occasions to return the keys and garage door remotes which did not happen. The landlord told the Tribunal that as a result, the decision was made to change the locks to secure the property.
The Tribunal is satisfied the tenant failed to return all keys and garage door remotes at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered. Bug bombs
The landlord seeks $37.38 after releasing six bug bombs in the property to address to kill a flea infestation they say was caused by the tenant’s pets.
The landlord said the bug bomb treatment occurred prior to the carpets being professionally cleaned.
Mr Hill does not dispute there was a flea infestation in the property and accepted liability for the cost.
The amount claimed is ordered. Labour costs for clearing the property remaining items
The landlord seeks compensation of $70.00 for labour costs to remove items left behind at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenant failed to remove all of their belongings and provided exit inspection photographs showing a large number of items remaining in the property at the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal was told that the landlord moved all of these items into the garage (including, but not limited to, a couch, side table, bedding, pillows, a chair, petrol container, cleaning products, plus various other items) which Mr Hill later collected and disposed of.
Mr Hill did not dispute that items were left behind at the end of the tenancy or the labour charge sought.
The Tribunal notes the e-mail exchange between the parties where the landlord asked the tenant on multiple occasions to remove their belongings.
Having heard from both parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that it is appropriate to award the landlord $70.00 labour cost for clearing the property of the tenant’s remaining possessions.

Did the tenant leave all chattels behind at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord seeks compensation of $111.98 the cost of replacing two wall mounted television brackets that were missing at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided pre-tenancy inspection photographs which prove the master bedroom and lounge were provided with wall mounted television brackets at the commencement of the tenancy.
The end of tenancy photographs show the wall mounted television brackets were missing at the end of the tenancy. This was not disputed by Mr Hill.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the wall mounted television brackets were missing at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered. Is the tenant responsible for re-letting costs
The landlord seeks re-letting costs of $105.00 after the parties agreed to end the fixed term early. The landlord states that the reletting costs are detailed in the tenancy agreement, which the tenant agreed to pay. The tenant has paid $139.00 for the advertising cost. The amount claimed is the cost of holding property viewings.
The landlord said that as a gesture of good will they did not charge the tenant the administration fee.
Section 50(1)(d) of the Act states that tenancies may be terminated where the tenant surrenders the tenancy, or delivers up vacant possession of the premises, to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent.
Section 44A(1) of the Act states that landlords are entitled to recover from the tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the termination of the tenancy.
The tenant previously accepted liability for the break lease costs. The Tribunal finds that the costs have been reasonably incurred by the landlord and the amounts claimed are ordered. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord seeks name suppression. Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
In this case the landlord has been wholly successful and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5344281 — Rent arrears at 13 Ara Kakara Avenue, Huapai, Kumeu 0810

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5344281 — Rent arrears at 13 Ara Kakara Avenue, Huapai, Kumeu 0810

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenant return all keys and security devices?

Did the tenant leave all chattels behind at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenant return all keys and security devices?

Did the tenant leave all chattels behind at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions