What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5441409 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 5441409?

Broadband Bill: $24.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $75.65 awarded to landlord; Electricity By Consent: $62.35 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Fuel Costs: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Loss (15-18 December 2025: $285.71 awarded to landlord; Rental Advertisement Fee: $69.00 awarded to landlord; Tenancy Application Checks: $40.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5441409?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5441409?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13557500-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5441409 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 5441409?

Broadband Bill: $24.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $75.65 awarded to landlord; Electricity By Consent: $62.35 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Fuel Costs: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Loss (15-18 December 2025: $285.71 awarded to landlord; Rental Advertisement Fee: $69.00 awarded to landlord; Tenancy Application Checks: $40.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5441409?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5441409?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13557500-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5441409 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5441409. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent loss (15-18 December 2025	$285.71		Rent loss (15-18 December 2025
Electricity by consent	$62.35		Electricity by consent
Rental advertisement fee	$69.00		Rental advertisement fee
Fuel costs	$50.00		Fuel costs
Tenancy application checks	$40.25		Tenancy application checks
Cleaning and cleaning products	$75.65		Cleaning and cleaning products
Broadband bill	$24.00		Broadband bill
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond		$2,000.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlords name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $634.96 [The tenant/s]: $1,365.04

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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 Tenant has applied for breach of Healthy Home Standards, compensation, a declaration to end the tenancy on 14 December 2025 and refund of the bond.
The tenancy was a fixed-term agreement commencing on 15 July 2025 and scheduled to expire on 15 January 2027. On or about 7 November 2025, the Tenant gave notice seeking to end the tenancy early on 14 December 2025 due to personal circumstances. The Landlord agreed to the early termination, and a new tenancy commenced on 19 December 2025.
At the hearing, the Tenant accepted liability for $62.35 in respect of the power bill. The Landlord withdrew the claim relating to the damaged clothesline.

How much is owed for rent?

The Landlord submitted that, when agreeing to the tenancy ending on 14 December 2025, he advised the Tenant that there would be “cost implications” arising from the early termination. He relied on a message sent to the Tenant on or about 7 November 2025 in which this was recorded.
The Landlord claimed rent for the period 15 to 18 December 2025, being the gap between the end of the tenancy and the commencement of a new tenancy. This amounts to $285.71.
The Tenant disputed liability for this amount, stating that she had provided four weeks’ notice and that the Landlord had agreed to the tenancy ending on 14 December 2025. She therefore contended that no further rent should be payable beyond that date.
A landlord may agree to early termination of a fixed-term tenancy, however such agreement is discretionary and may be subject to conditions. Where a tenancy ends prior to the expiry of the fixed term, the Tenant remains liable for rent until the earlier of the agreed termination date or the date on which the premises are re-let. In the District Court case of Maneana v Positive Asset Management Ltd 1 , Judge Harrop confirmed that it is standard practice for tenants to remain liable for rent until a replacement tenant is secured, together with the reasonable costs of re-letting. 1 CIV-20210085-148, DC Wlg, 31-5-21
Having considered the evidence, I find the Tenant is liable for rent until the commencement of the new tenancy. As this was a fixed-term tenancy, the Tenant did not have the right to terminate by providing four weeks notice. Her argument that her liability ended on the agreed termination date is inconsistent with the law and shows confusion of the Tenant about her rights. An agreement to end a tenancy early does not, of itself, extinguish liability for rent unless expressly agreed. I do not accept that such an agreement was reached here. I find that rent is payable for the period 15–18 December 2025.
The amount ordered is proved. Broadband bill
The Landlord claimed $24.00 for broadband usage from 1 to 14 December 2025. In support, the Landlord provided a bill from One New Zealand and explained how the charges were apportioned between neighbouring tenants.
The Tenant disputed the claim, stating the bill was dated 15 January 2026 and therefore related to a period after she vacated on 14 December 2025.
The Landlord submitted the January 2026 invoice covered usage for the preceding month. He also noted the Tenant had overdue amounts, which were cleared by 18 December 2025, and that the December charges had not yet been invoiced at that time.
Having considered the evidence, I accept the Landlord’s explanation that the broadband charges are billed in arrears. The January 2026 invoice includes the Tenants usage for December 2025, including the period the Tenant remained in occupation. Again, this maybe a misunderstanding of the Tenant as to how One New Zealand bills in arrears. I am satisfied the charges claimed relate to the period of 1 -14 December 2025 when the Tenant lived at the property.
The amount claimed is proven and awarded. Rental advertisement costs, fuel costs and tenancy application checks
The Landlord sought reimbursement of $69.00 for the cost of advertising the rental property in order to secure new tenants and provided a supporting invoice confirming this expense. In addition, the Landlord claimed fuel costs incurred travelling from his residence in Tuakau to the property in Pokeno, for the purposes of cleaning, conducting viewings, and meeting prospective tenants, supported by a petrol receipt. A further sum of $40.25 was claimed for tenant background checks conducted through “MyRent,” with an invoice submitted in support.
The Tenant disputed liability for these costs on the basis that they were not discussed or agreed in advance. She further submitted that she assisted in facilitating viewings by personally showing prospective tenants through the property and noted that on at least one occasion the Landlord failed to attend a scheduled viewing, requiring her to conduct it herself.
The Landlord responded that, a number of prospective viewers arranged appointments but failed to attend, necessitating repeated efforts on his part.
Section 44A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that a landlord is entitled to recover from an outgoing tenant those expenses reasonably incurred as a consequence of an early termination of the tenancy.
Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the advertising fee, fuel expenses, and background check costs claimed by the Landlord were reasonably incurred as a direct result of the early termination. While the Tenant may have assisted with certain viewings, this does not negate the Landlord’s need to attend the property for cleaning, preparation, and other necessary tasks associated with re-letting. The Landlord has substantiated these expenses with evidence.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The Landlord also claimed compensation for a four-day period of lost rent from 15 to 18 December 2025. However, as this amount has already been included and claimed under rent, there is no need to award this again.
This claim is dismissed. Cleaning
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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The Landlord alleged that the Tenant failed to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. He stated that he was required to spend approximately half a day cleaning the bathroom and kitchen, for which he claimed between $200.00 and $250.00, together with $25.65 for cleaning products. The Landlord relied on the final inspection photographs, which depicted dark staining and soap build-up on the shower tiles, as well as grease in the oven and oil marks in the kitchen. An invoice from Pak’nSave was also provided in support of the cleaning products claimed.
The Tenant disputed this, stating that these issues were not raised with her during the final inspection. She submitted that she had arranged for a professional cleaner at the end of the tenancy and that, apart from a minor comment regarding one area requiring a spray and wipe, no significant concerns were raised. She maintained that the property was left in an immaculate condition, and further noted that any minor cleaning residue identified appeared to relate to cleaning solution not fully wiped away, which she addressed.
Having considered the evidence, I find that the Tenant is responsible for reasonable cleaning costs in respect of the bathroom. The final inspection report clearly records that the bathroom required attention, and in those circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the Tenant to have ensured it was properly cleaned prior to vacating. However, there is insufficient evidence to establish that additional cleaning was required in the kitchen, as the inspection report does not substantiate significant issues in that area.
I award cleaning costs in the sum of $75.65, being one hour of cleaning at $50.00 per hour for the bathroom, together with $25.65 for cleaning products.
The amount ordered is proved. Tenants claims- Breach of Healthy Home Standards
The Tenant alleges a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards on the basis of ongoing electrical issues, asserting that the property posed a safety risk, including a potential fire hazard. She described repeated power outages beginning in August 2024 when multiple appliances such as a jug, toaster, or vacuum were used simultaneously. She stated this occurred on several occasions and required her to reset the power via a neighbouring property. The Tenant maintained that the issue was never adequately resolved by the Landlord who she reported this to multiple times and it impacted her ability to fully use the premises. She had to use one appliance at a time.
The Landlord disputed this and maintained the system was sound. The outages were caused by user-related overloading rather than a defect or non- compliance with housing standards. He submitted that only one formal complaint was raised by the Tenant in August 2024, which was promptly addressed by engaging an electrician. The electrician’s findings indicated no fault with the electrical system, attributing the issue instead to overloading the circuit through simultaneous use of high-demand appliances. The Landlord further noted the property is relatively new, has not presented similar issues for prior or subsequent tenants, and that follow-up inspections and checks revealed no defects. The Landlord provided a recording of his conversation with the electrician which confirmed that the issue was due to too many appliance being used simultaneously. An invoice was provided for the electrician services.
Healthy Home standards set minimum requirements for rental properties to ensure they are warm, dry and healthy to live in. There are five key standards which including heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping.
In considering the evidence, the Healthy Home standards do not cover electrical capacity or power supply issues.
For this reason, the Tenants claim is dismissed. Declaration to Release from Fixed-Term Tenancy
The Tenant sought a declaration that she was released from the fixed-term tenancy as at 14 December 2025. Given the tenancy ended on that date, I am uncertain of the legal grounds for this claim.
The claim is dismissed. Compensation
The Tenant sought compensation on the basis that she was unable to fully utilise the premises, alleging she could not operate more than one appliance at a time from certain power points. She further claimed that multiple power points throughout the property, including in the bedroom, were not functioning, which prevented her from simultaneously using appliances such as an electric blanket, jug, and toaster. The Tenant acknowledged raising concerns with the Landlord in August 2024 regarding the kitchen power point; however, no evidence was provided to show that any issues relating to additional power points in other areas of the property were reported at that time.
The Tenant relied on an electrician’s invoice dated 21 August 2024, which recorded that the kitchen power point tripped when both a jug and toaster were used simultaneously. The issue was identified as an overloaded circuit rather than a fault in the electrical system. The electrician noted that modern kitchens are commonly divided across multiple circuits to manage load and advised that only one high-draw appliance be used at a time. A longer-term option of installing an additional circuit was suggested, but this was not described as necessary to achieve compliance or to remedy a defect.
The Landlord submitted that the electrical system was fully operational and that no defect had been identified.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with all applicable building, health, and safety requirements. Section 40(1)(d) imposes a corresponding obligation on tenants to notify the landlord as soon as practicable of any damage or need for repairs.
Having considered the evidence, I am not satisfied that the Tenant has established, on the balance of probabilities, the existence of a defect or non- compliance in the electrical system. No independent expert evidence has been provided to support a finding that the installation was faulty or inadequate. The electrician’s invoice instead attributes the issue to circuit overloading, a scenario consistent with normal usage limits in modern residential properties. Further, there is no evidence that the Tenant notified the Landlord of alleged issues with other power points throughout the property. Had such evidence been provided, it may have carried greater weight in support of an electrical system-wide defect.
In these circumstances, I am unable to conclude that the Landlord breached his statutory obligations or that the Tenant suffered compensable loss arising from any defect in the premises.
The claim is dismissed.
As the Landlord has been substantially successful, the Tenant is ordered to reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression is granted to the Landlord. Name suppression is also granted to the Tenant, having regard to her employment and the potential safety risks should her name and address be disclosed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5441409. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent loss (15-18 December 2025	$285.71		Rent loss (15-18 December 2025
Electricity by consent	$62.35		Electricity by consent
Rental advertisement fee	$69.00		Rental advertisement fee
Fuel costs	$50.00		Fuel costs
Tenancy application checks	$40.25		Tenancy application checks
Cleaning and cleaning products	$75.65		Cleaning and cleaning products
Broadband bill	$24.00		Broadband bill
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond		$2,000.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlords name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $634.96 [The tenant/s]: $1,365.04

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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 Tenant has applied for breach of Healthy Home Standards, compensation, a declaration to end the tenancy on 14 December 2025 and refund of the bond.
The tenancy was a fixed-term agreement commencing on 15 July 2025 and scheduled to expire on 15 January 2027. On or about 7 November 2025, the Tenant gave notice seeking to end the tenancy early on 14 December 2025 due to personal circumstances. The Landlord agreed to the early termination, and a new tenancy commenced on 19 December 2025.
At the hearing, the Tenant accepted liability for $62.35 in respect of the power bill. The Landlord withdrew the claim relating to the damaged clothesline.

How much is owed for rent?

The Landlord submitted that, when agreeing to the tenancy ending on 14 December 2025, he advised the Tenant that there would be “cost implications” arising from the early termination. He relied on a message sent to the Tenant on or about 7 November 2025 in which this was recorded.
The Landlord claimed rent for the period 15 to 18 December 2025, being the gap between the end of the tenancy and the commencement of a new tenancy. This amounts to $285.71.
The Tenant disputed liability for this amount, stating that she had provided four weeks’ notice and that the Landlord had agreed to the tenancy ending on 14 December 2025. She therefore contended that no further rent should be payable beyond that date.
A landlord may agree to early termination of a fixed-term tenancy, however such agreement is discretionary and may be subject to conditions. Where a tenancy ends prior to the expiry of the fixed term, the Tenant remains liable for rent until the earlier of the agreed termination date or the date on which the premises are re-let. In the District Court case of Maneana v Positive Asset Management Ltd 1 , Judge Harrop confirmed that it is standard practice for tenants to remain liable for rent until a replacement tenant is secured, together with the reasonable costs of re-letting. 1 CIV-20210085-148, DC Wlg, 31-5-21
Having considered the evidence, I find the Tenant is liable for rent until the commencement of the new tenancy. As this was a fixed-term tenancy, the Tenant did not have the right to terminate by providing four weeks notice. Her argument that her liability ended on the agreed termination date is inconsistent with the law and shows confusion of the Tenant about her rights. An agreement to end a tenancy early does not, of itself, extinguish liability for rent unless expressly agreed. I do not accept that such an agreement was reached here. I find that rent is payable for the period 15–18 December 2025.
The amount ordered is proved. Broadband bill
The Landlord claimed $24.00 for broadband usage from 1 to 14 December 2025. In support, the Landlord provided a bill from One New Zealand and explained how the charges were apportioned between neighbouring tenants.
The Tenant disputed the claim, stating the bill was dated 15 January 2026 and therefore related to a period after she vacated on 14 December 2025.
The Landlord submitted the January 2026 invoice covered usage for the preceding month. He also noted the Tenant had overdue amounts, which were cleared by 18 December 2025, and that the December charges had not yet been invoiced at that time.
Having considered the evidence, I accept the Landlord’s explanation that the broadband charges are billed in arrears. The January 2026 invoice includes the Tenants usage for December 2025, including the period the Tenant remained in occupation. Again, this maybe a misunderstanding of the Tenant as to how One New Zealand bills in arrears. I am satisfied the charges claimed relate to the period of 1 -14 December 2025 when the Tenant lived at the property.
The amount claimed is proven and awarded. Rental advertisement costs, fuel costs and tenancy application checks
The Landlord sought reimbursement of $69.00 for the cost of advertising the rental property in order to secure new tenants and provided a supporting invoice confirming this expense. In addition, the Landlord claimed fuel costs incurred travelling from his residence in Tuakau to the property in Pokeno, for the purposes of cleaning, conducting viewings, and meeting prospective tenants, supported by a petrol receipt. A further sum of $40.25 was claimed for tenant background checks conducted through “MyRent,” with an invoice submitted in support.
The Tenant disputed liability for these costs on the basis that they were not discussed or agreed in advance. She further submitted that she assisted in facilitating viewings by personally showing prospective tenants through the property and noted that on at least one occasion the Landlord failed to attend a scheduled viewing, requiring her to conduct it herself.
The Landlord responded that, a number of prospective viewers arranged appointments but failed to attend, necessitating repeated efforts on his part.
Section 44A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that a landlord is entitled to recover from an outgoing tenant those expenses reasonably incurred as a consequence of an early termination of the tenancy.
Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the advertising fee, fuel expenses, and background check costs claimed by the Landlord were reasonably incurred as a direct result of the early termination. While the Tenant may have assisted with certain viewings, this does not negate the Landlord’s need to attend the property for cleaning, preparation, and other necessary tasks associated with re-letting. The Landlord has substantiated these expenses with evidence.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The Landlord also claimed compensation for a four-day period of lost rent from 15 to 18 December 2025. However, as this amount has already been included and claimed under rent, there is no need to award this again.
This claim is dismissed. Cleaning
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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The Landlord alleged that the Tenant failed to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. He stated that he was required to spend approximately half a day cleaning the bathroom and kitchen, for which he claimed between $200.00 and $250.00, together with $25.65 for cleaning products. The Landlord relied on the final inspection photographs, which depicted dark staining and soap build-up on the shower tiles, as well as grease in the oven and oil marks in the kitchen. An invoice from Pak’nSave was also provided in support of the cleaning products claimed.
The Tenant disputed this, stating that these issues were not raised with her during the final inspection. She submitted that she had arranged for a professional cleaner at the end of the tenancy and that, apart from a minor comment regarding one area requiring a spray and wipe, no significant concerns were raised. She maintained that the property was left in an immaculate condition, and further noted that any minor cleaning residue identified appeared to relate to cleaning solution not fully wiped away, which she addressed.
Having considered the evidence, I find that the Tenant is responsible for reasonable cleaning costs in respect of the bathroom. The final inspection report clearly records that the bathroom required attention, and in those circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the Tenant to have ensured it was properly cleaned prior to vacating. However, there is insufficient evidence to establish that additional cleaning was required in the kitchen, as the inspection report does not substantiate significant issues in that area.
I award cleaning costs in the sum of $75.65, being one hour of cleaning at $50.00 per hour for the bathroom, together with $25.65 for cleaning products.
The amount ordered is proved. Tenants claims- Breach of Healthy Home Standards
The Tenant alleges a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards on the basis of ongoing electrical issues, asserting that the property posed a safety risk, including a potential fire hazard. She described repeated power outages beginning in August 2024 when multiple appliances such as a jug, toaster, or vacuum were used simultaneously. She stated this occurred on several occasions and required her to reset the power via a neighbouring property. The Tenant maintained that the issue was never adequately resolved by the Landlord who she reported this to multiple times and it impacted her ability to fully use the premises. She had to use one appliance at a time.
The Landlord disputed this and maintained the system was sound. The outages were caused by user-related overloading rather than a defect or non- compliance with housing standards. He submitted that only one formal complaint was raised by the Tenant in August 2024, which was promptly addressed by engaging an electrician. The electrician’s findings indicated no fault with the electrical system, attributing the issue instead to overloading the circuit through simultaneous use of high-demand appliances. The Landlord further noted the property is relatively new, has not presented similar issues for prior or subsequent tenants, and that follow-up inspections and checks revealed no defects. The Landlord provided a recording of his conversation with the electrician which confirmed that the issue was due to too many appliance being used simultaneously. An invoice was provided for the electrician services.
Healthy Home standards set minimum requirements for rental properties to ensure they are warm, dry and healthy to live in. There are five key standards which including heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping.
In considering the evidence, the Healthy Home standards do not cover electrical capacity or power supply issues.
For this reason, the Tenants claim is dismissed. Declaration to Release from Fixed-Term Tenancy
The Tenant sought a declaration that she was released from the fixed-term tenancy as at 14 December 2025. Given the tenancy ended on that date, I am uncertain of the legal grounds for this claim.
The claim is dismissed. Compensation
The Tenant sought compensation on the basis that she was unable to fully utilise the premises, alleging she could not operate more than one appliance at a time from certain power points. She further claimed that multiple power points throughout the property, including in the bedroom, were not functioning, which prevented her from simultaneously using appliances such as an electric blanket, jug, and toaster. The Tenant acknowledged raising concerns with the Landlord in August 2024 regarding the kitchen power point; however, no evidence was provided to show that any issues relating to additional power points in other areas of the property were reported at that time.
The Tenant relied on an electrician’s invoice dated 21 August 2024, which recorded that the kitchen power point tripped when both a jug and toaster were used simultaneously. The issue was identified as an overloaded circuit rather than a fault in the electrical system. The electrician noted that modern kitchens are commonly divided across multiple circuits to manage load and advised that only one high-draw appliance be used at a time. A longer-term option of installing an additional circuit was suggested, but this was not described as necessary to achieve compliance or to remedy a defect.
The Landlord submitted that the electrical system was fully operational and that no defect had been identified.
Under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with all applicable building, health, and safety requirements. Section 40(1)(d) imposes a corresponding obligation on tenants to notify the landlord as soon as practicable of any damage or need for repairs.
Having considered the evidence, I am not satisfied that the Tenant has established, on the balance of probabilities, the existence of a defect or non- compliance in the electrical system. No independent expert evidence has been provided to support a finding that the installation was faulty or inadequate. The electrician’s invoice instead attributes the issue to circuit overloading, a scenario consistent with normal usage limits in modern residential properties. Further, there is no evidence that the Tenant notified the Landlord of alleged issues with other power points throughout the property. Had such evidence been provided, it may have carried greater weight in support of an electrical system-wide defect.
In these circumstances, I am unable to conclude that the Landlord breached his statutory obligations or that the Tenant suffered compensable loss arising from any defect in the premises.
The claim is dismissed.
As the Landlord has been substantially successful, the Tenant is ordered to reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression is granted to the Landlord. Name suppression is also granted to the Tenant, having regard to her employment and the potential safety risks should her name and address be disclosed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5441409 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5441409 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions