What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5437408?

The tribunal order states: Reece William Dick LeRoy and Madisyn Daisy Ann Clapperton-Leroy must pay

How much money was awarded in case 5437408?

Firewood: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Ceiling: $29.50 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Benchtop: $327.00 awarded to landlord; Light Fitting: $47.25 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $107.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5437408?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5437408?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13516081-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5437408?

The tribunal order states: Reece William Dick LeRoy and Madisyn Daisy Ann Clapperton-Leroy must pay

How much money was awarded in case 5437408?

Firewood: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Ceiling: $29.50 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Benchtop: $327.00 awarded to landlord; Light Fitting: $47.25 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $107.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5437408?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5437408?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13516081-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

65 Te Kawa Road, Greenlane, Auckland 1061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5437408 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5437408 — net $710.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates to end of tenancy	$107.00	Water rates to end of tenancy
Firewood	$200.00	___________________________________ 54374085 therefore, order the tenant to pay $200.00 towards the cost of firewood being approximately one third of the amoun…
Repairs: Ceiling	$29.50	Repairs: Ceiling
Repairs: Light fitting	$47.25	Repairs: Light fitting
Repairs: Kitchen benchtop	$327.00	Repairs: Kitchen benchtop
Net award	$710.75
Bond	$4,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$710.75

Order

Reece William Dick LeRoy and Madisyn Daisy Ann Clapperton-Leroy must pay Greg William Rust & Louise Rust As Trustees Of The Rust Family Trust Greg William Rust $710.75 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The remainder of the landlord claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4000.00 (BN-17525976) immediately apportioned as follows: Greg William Rust & Louise Rust As Trustees Of The Rust Family Trust: $710.00 Reece William Dick LeRoy, Madisyn Daisy Ann Clapperton-Leroy $3289.25

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 29 April 2026.
The tenants rented a 4 bedroom, 2 bathroom home from the landlord and lived there with their family from August 2024 until January 2026.
The landlord has applied for water charges of $107.00, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord compensation claims are itemised as follows: (a)Smoke alarm missing - $35.00 (b)Hose and hatchet missing (c)Cleaning - $620.00 (d)Firewood replacement - $608.69 (e)Ceiling repair - $59.00 (f)Light fitting - $189.00 (g)Curtain/blind repair - $2480.56 (h)Benchtop stain - $327.00 (i)Carpet stain - $129.00 Standard of proof
The burden of proof is on the party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal (in this case the landlord) to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not). They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach together with the cost to remedy. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 23 January 2026. The landlord provided and water rates records and seeks the sum of $107.00 to the end of the tenancy. The tenant does not dispute this amount and it is ordered accordingly.

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. In support of this claim the landlord provided a copy of photographs of smear marks on the oven base and door frame which appear to be from being wiped, some dirt specks on the oven tray, minor scuff marks and cobwebs in some ceiling corners including the skylight in the stairway, grease on the extractor fan and staining on the bottom of one toilet bowl. The landlord also provided a copy of an invoice dated 26 January 2026 from Jim’s Cleaning for “regular cleaning” in the sum of $620.00.
The tenant disputed the cleaning claim and stated that the premises were cleaned at the end of the tenancy and the cleaning was reasonable. He stated that the skylight was above the stairs and hard to reach and stated that although the landlord has pinpointed some areas where they wanted more cleaning they did not provide photographs of the whole house.
It is not always easy to define what "reasonably clean and tidy" means. However, a tenant is not required to leave a property immaculate or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to an extra level so that they can re-tenant the premises, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord has failed to prove the claim for the following reasons: (a)These premises were a large 4-bedroom, 2-bathroom house and the photographs provided by the landlord refer only to some small marks on the oven, the extractor fan, minor scuff marks, some cobwebs including some in a hard-to-reach area in the stairwell and a mark in the toilet. (b)The invoice provided refers to a general regular clean and does not itemise the specific issues raised by the landlord. (c)Although not immaculate I find that the landlord has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy and required a general house clean at the end of the tenancy.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: A smoke alarm, hose and hatchet. The tenant agreed that these were accidentally removed in the pack up and to return them on Monday 4 May 2026.
The landlord claimed that there was firewood missing at the end of the tenancy and sought compensation in the sum of $608.69 for replacement.
In support of this claim the landlord provided a photograph taken of the firewood at the beginning of the tenancy showing firewood stacked on both sides of the storage area and a photograph taken at the end of the tenancy showing firewood only on one side. The landlord also provided an Ignition Firewood order form for 3 cubic metres of firewood in the sum of $608.69 based on an estimate that there was about 3 cubic metres of firewood provided at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord stated that it was agreed that the tenant could use the firewood provided but was required to leave the same amount at the end of the tenancy. This is recorded in clause 52 of the tenancy agreement.
The tenant stated that he did not use the landlord’s firewood and moved it all to one side of the storage area and then ordered his own firewood which was used and the leftovers sold at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant provided a copy of photographs showing a plie of firewood delivered in September 2024.
Having considered the evidence, I find the following: (a)The photographs provided show that the pile of firewood provided by the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy is reduced at the end of the tenancy, even taking in to account the tenant’s claim that wood was moved from one side to the other. (b)I accept that the tenant purchased their own firewood also during the tenancy but have no evidence of the quantity sold at the end. (c)I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has proved that the tenant did not leave the same amount of firewood at the end of the tenancy as provided at the beginning. (d)In determining the amount of compensation to order I must take a conservative approach as there is no clear evidence of the exact amount provided at the commencement and there is still a significant amount of firewood left at the end of the tenancy. The order form provided highlights a Spring sale so is not current at the time the tenancy ended which was January. I therefore, order the tenant to pay $200.00 towards the cost of firewood being approximately one third of the amount claimed.

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.
The landlord claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Ceiling repair - $59.00 (a)The landlord claimed that the tenant damaged the ceiling in the living room by installing a bike rack that placed pressure on the ceiling causing marks and cracking. The landlord has not yet done the repair but claims the amount of a four-litre pot of paint. (b)The tenant disputed the damage and stated that he did not see any damage. (c)Having considered the evidence I am satisfied that some damage was caused by the bike rack which worked off pressure against the ceiling. As the landlord has not yet done the work and the area damaged is only small, I order compensation of half the cost of the paint being $29.50.
Light fitting - $189.00 (a)The landlord claimed that the tenant damaged a decorative light fitting and provided entry and exit photographs which showed a chain hanging loose at the end of the tenancy. (b)The tenant confirmed the damage occurred during the tenancy and happened during the moveout but submitted it was repairable. (c)The landlord has not yet investigated repair or replaced the fitting and provided a picture of a similar light fitting at a cost of $189.00. The landlord advised that the current light fitting is 2 years old. (d)Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord has proved that the light fitting was damaged during the tenancy beyond fair wear and tear. (e)In considering compensation I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. I have also taken into account that the landlord has not yet investigated whether this light fitting can be repaired and has also not yet replaced the item and only provided one quote. At the time of hearing it was three months after the tenancy ended so no actual cost to remedy is available. I must therefore take a conservative approach and find it is appropriate to order the tenant to pay 25 percent of the quoted amount being $47.25.
Curtain/blind repair - $2480.56 (a)The landlord claimed that the tenant damaged the blinds throughout the premises and sought the sum of $2480.56 for repairs of fourteen blinds in seven rooms. The landlord provided before and after photographs of blinds in the master bedroom, kitchen, dining and lounge. The backs of the blinds are not visible but the landlord stated that there were broken eyelets and that this was evidenced by the edge of the blinds looking loose in the exit photographs and stated this was caused by the pull string being in front of the blind. The landlord advised that the age of the blinds was 4 years for the upstairs blinds which included the master bedroom and 7 years for the downstairs blinds which included the kitchen, dining, living rooms. (b)The tenant denied that there was damage to the blinds beyond fair wear and tear and stated that they were never told that the pull string could not be in front of the blind. The tenant claimed that the eyelet damage was there before they moved in and that they had no problems with use of the blinds during the tenancy. (c)When the parties evidence about damage is in conflict the Tribunal is reliant on the photographic evidence. There is no evidence of the condition of the eyelets before or after the tenancy as no photographs of the back of the blinds was provided. The Tribunal considers blinds to have a lifespan of 8 years. As the blinds are at least 4 years old and much of the damage claimed relates to the downstairs blinds which are 7 years old the Tribunal expects that there will be some wear and tear. Having carefully considered the photographs I am not satisfied that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to prove that the damage to the blinds is beyond fair wear and tear.
Benchtop stain - $327.00 (a)The landlord claimed that the kitchen benchtop was stained with coffee. The tenant does not dispute this claim. The amount of $327.00 being $285.00 plus gst to remedy the damage is ordered by consent.
Carpet stain - $129.00 (a)The landlord claimed that there was a stain on the carpet in the master bedroom. A close-up photograph of a stain on the carpet was provided together with a screenshot from Auckland Carpet Steam and Dry website with their charges. (b)The tenant denied liability for this stain and claimed that they had never noticed it. (c)As no entry photograph was provided and the landlord has not provided an invoice for the clean, I find that this claim is not proved on the balance of probabilities.
Both parties attended the hearing which took place today.
During the hearing both parties referred to evidence that had not been filed.
By consent the hearing will be kept open until 5pm Friday 1 May 2026 for parties to file further evidence and to respond to the other party as directed in the orders above.
The hearing will close at 5pm Friday 1 May 2026 and the Tribunal will issue a decision within one month after that time.
The parties have agreed that the tenant will return the smoke detector, hose and hatchet to the landlord by the end of the day on Monday 4 May 2026.
As the landlord has been only partially successful and succeeded with less than half the amount sought, I decline to order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5437408 — net $710.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates to end of tenancy	$107.00	Water rates to end of tenancy
Firewood	$200.00	___________________________________ 54374085 therefore, order the tenant to pay $200.00 towards the cost of firewood being approximately one third of the amoun…
Repairs: Ceiling	$29.50	Repairs: Ceiling
Repairs: Light fitting	$47.25	Repairs: Light fitting
Repairs: Kitchen benchtop	$327.00	Repairs: Kitchen benchtop
Net award	$710.75
Bond	$4,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$710.75

Order

Reece William Dick LeRoy and Madisyn Daisy Ann Clapperton-Leroy must pay Greg William Rust & Louise Rust As Trustees Of The Rust Family Trust Greg William Rust $710.75 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The remainder of the landlord claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4000.00 (BN-17525976) immediately apportioned as follows: Greg William Rust & Louise Rust As Trustees Of The Rust Family Trust: $710.00 Reece William Dick LeRoy, Madisyn Daisy Ann Clapperton-Leroy $3289.25

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 29 April 2026.
The tenants rented a 4 bedroom, 2 bathroom home from the landlord and lived there with their family from August 2024 until January 2026.
The landlord has applied for water charges of $107.00, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord compensation claims are itemised as follows: (a)Smoke alarm missing - $35.00 (b)Hose and hatchet missing (c)Cleaning - $620.00 (d)Firewood replacement - $608.69 (e)Ceiling repair - $59.00 (f)Light fitting - $189.00 (g)Curtain/blind repair - $2480.56 (h)Benchtop stain - $327.00 (i)Carpet stain - $129.00 Standard of proof
The burden of proof is on the party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal (in this case the landlord) to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not). They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach together with the cost to remedy. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 23 January 2026. The landlord provided and water rates records and seeks the sum of $107.00 to the end of the tenancy. The tenant does not dispute this amount and it is ordered accordingly.

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. In support of this claim the landlord provided a copy of photographs of smear marks on the oven base and door frame which appear to be from being wiped, some dirt specks on the oven tray, minor scuff marks and cobwebs in some ceiling corners including the skylight in the stairway, grease on the extractor fan and staining on the bottom of one toilet bowl. The landlord also provided a copy of an invoice dated 26 January 2026 from Jim’s Cleaning for “regular cleaning” in the sum of $620.00.
The tenant disputed the cleaning claim and stated that the premises were cleaned at the end of the tenancy and the cleaning was reasonable. He stated that the skylight was above the stairs and hard to reach and stated that although the landlord has pinpointed some areas where they wanted more cleaning they did not provide photographs of the whole house.
It is not always easy to define what "reasonably clean and tidy" means. However, a tenant is not required to leave a property immaculate or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to an extra level so that they can re-tenant the premises, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord has failed to prove the claim for the following reasons: (a)These premises were a large 4-bedroom, 2-bathroom house and the photographs provided by the landlord refer only to some small marks on the oven, the extractor fan, minor scuff marks, some cobwebs including some in a hard-to-reach area in the stairwell and a mark in the toilet. (b)The invoice provided refers to a general regular clean and does not itemise the specific issues raised by the landlord. (c)Although not immaculate I find that the landlord has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy and required a general house clean at the end of the tenancy.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: A smoke alarm, hose and hatchet. The tenant agreed that these were accidentally removed in the pack up and to return them on Monday 4 May 2026.
The landlord claimed that there was firewood missing at the end of the tenancy and sought compensation in the sum of $608.69 for replacement.
In support of this claim the landlord provided a photograph taken of the firewood at the beginning of the tenancy showing firewood stacked on both sides of the storage area and a photograph taken at the end of the tenancy showing firewood only on one side. The landlord also provided an Ignition Firewood order form for 3 cubic metres of firewood in the sum of $608.69 based on an estimate that there was about 3 cubic metres of firewood provided at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord stated that it was agreed that the tenant could use the firewood provided but was required to leave the same amount at the end of the tenancy. This is recorded in clause 52 of the tenancy agreement.
The tenant stated that he did not use the landlord’s firewood and moved it all to one side of the storage area and then ordered his own firewood which was used and the leftovers sold at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant provided a copy of photographs showing a plie of firewood delivered in September 2024.
Having considered the evidence, I find the following: (a)The photographs provided show that the pile of firewood provided by the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy is reduced at the end of the tenancy, even taking in to account the tenant’s claim that wood was moved from one side to the other. (b)I accept that the tenant purchased their own firewood also during the tenancy but have no evidence of the quantity sold at the end. (c)I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has proved that the tenant did not leave the same amount of firewood at the end of the tenancy as provided at the beginning. (d)In determining the amount of compensation to order I must take a conservative approach as there is no clear evidence of the exact amount provided at the commencement and there is still a significant amount of firewood left at the end of the tenancy. The order form provided highlights a Spring sale so is not current at the time the tenancy ended which was January. I therefore, order the tenant to pay $200.00 towards the cost of firewood being approximately one third of the amount claimed.

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.
The landlord claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Ceiling repair - $59.00 (a)The landlord claimed that the tenant damaged the ceiling in the living room by installing a bike rack that placed pressure on the ceiling causing marks and cracking. The landlord has not yet done the repair but claims the amount of a four-litre pot of paint. (b)The tenant disputed the damage and stated that he did not see any damage. (c)Having considered the evidence I am satisfied that some damage was caused by the bike rack which worked off pressure against the ceiling. As the landlord has not yet done the work and the area damaged is only small, I order compensation of half the cost of the paint being $29.50.
Light fitting - $189.00 (a)The landlord claimed that the tenant damaged a decorative light fitting and provided entry and exit photographs which showed a chain hanging loose at the end of the tenancy. (b)The tenant confirmed the damage occurred during the tenancy and happened during the moveout but submitted it was repairable. (c)The landlord has not yet investigated repair or replaced the fitting and provided a picture of a similar light fitting at a cost of $189.00. The landlord advised that the current light fitting is 2 years old. (d)Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord has proved that the light fitting was damaged during the tenancy beyond fair wear and tear. (e)In considering compensation I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. I have also taken into account that the landlord has not yet investigated whether this light fitting can be repaired and has also not yet replaced the item and only provided one quote. At the time of hearing it was three months after the tenancy ended so no actual cost to remedy is available. I must therefore take a conservative approach and find it is appropriate to order the tenant to pay 25 percent of the quoted amount being $47.25.
Curtain/blind repair - $2480.56 (a)The landlord claimed that the tenant damaged the blinds throughout the premises and sought the sum of $2480.56 for repairs of fourteen blinds in seven rooms. The landlord provided before and after photographs of blinds in the master bedroom, kitchen, dining and lounge. The backs of the blinds are not visible but the landlord stated that there were broken eyelets and that this was evidenced by the edge of the blinds looking loose in the exit photographs and stated this was caused by the pull string being in front of the blind. The landlord advised that the age of the blinds was 4 years for the upstairs blinds which included the master bedroom and 7 years for the downstairs blinds which included the kitchen, dining, living rooms. (b)The tenant denied that there was damage to the blinds beyond fair wear and tear and stated that they were never told that the pull string could not be in front of the blind. The tenant claimed that the eyelet damage was there before they moved in and that they had no problems with use of the blinds during the tenancy. (c)When the parties evidence about damage is in conflict the Tribunal is reliant on the photographic evidence. There is no evidence of the condition of the eyelets before or after the tenancy as no photographs of the back of the blinds was provided. The Tribunal considers blinds to have a lifespan of 8 years. As the blinds are at least 4 years old and much of the damage claimed relates to the downstairs blinds which are 7 years old the Tribunal expects that there will be some wear and tear. Having carefully considered the photographs I am not satisfied that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to prove that the damage to the blinds is beyond fair wear and tear.
Benchtop stain - $327.00 (a)The landlord claimed that the kitchen benchtop was stained with coffee. The tenant does not dispute this claim. The amount of $327.00 being $285.00 plus gst to remedy the damage is ordered by consent.
Carpet stain - $129.00 (a)The landlord claimed that there was a stain on the carpet in the master bedroom. A close-up photograph of a stain on the carpet was provided together with a screenshot from Auckland Carpet Steam and Dry website with their charges. (b)The tenant denied liability for this stain and claimed that they had never noticed it. (c)As no entry photograph was provided and the landlord has not provided an invoice for the clean, I find that this claim is not proved on the balance of probabilities.
Both parties attended the hearing which took place today.
During the hearing both parties referred to evidence that had not been filed.
By consent the hearing will be kept open until 5pm Friday 1 May 2026 for parties to file further evidence and to respond to the other party as directed in the orders above.
The hearing will close at 5pm Friday 1 May 2026 and the Tribunal will issue a decision within one month after that time.
The parties have agreed that the tenant will return the smoke detector, hose and hatchet to the landlord by the end of the day on Monday 4 May 2026.
As the landlord has been only partially successful and succeeded with less than half the amount sought, I decline to order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5437408 — Property damage at 65 Te Kawa Road, Greenlane, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5437408 — Property damage at 65 Te Kawa Road, Greenlane, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions