What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5457269 about?

The tribunal order states: The Landlord’s name and identifying details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5457269?

Cleaning: $321.40 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Insultation Replaced (Beneath Home: $490.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $930.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,039.65 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,955.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,034.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5457269?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5457269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13699330-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5457269 about?

The tribunal order states: The Landlord’s name and identifying details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5457269?

Cleaning: $321.40 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Insultation Replaced (Beneath Home: $490.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $930.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,039.65 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,955.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,034.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5457269?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5457269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13699330-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

[Address] Tenancy Tribunal Case 5457269 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5457269. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$1,034.00	Rubbish removal
Dog urine cleaning / deodorising	$321.40	atisfied the cleaning costs were reasonably incurred. I order the tenant to pay $321.40.
Loss of rent	$930.00	the landlord has proved the loss of two weeks’ rent. I order the tenant to pay $930.00.
Carpet replacement	$2,039.65	imed for carpet replacement is reasonable and proved. I order the tenant to pay $2,039.65.
Damage to house	$2,955.50	Damage to house
Exemplary damages: failure to quit premises	$200.00	failure to quit premises
Exemplary damages: interference with smoke alarms	$50.00	interference with smoke alarms
Insultation replaced (beneath home	$490.00	Insultation replaced (beneath home
Filing fee	$28.00	Filing fee

Order

The Landlord’s name and identifying details are suppressed.
Sasha Pare Grace Mountfort is to pay [Landlord] $6,188.55 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionLandlord Rubbish removal$1,034.00 Dog urine cleaning / deodorising$321.40 Loss of rent$930.00 Carpet replacement$2,039.65 Damage to house$2,955.50 Exemplary damages: failure to quit premises$200.00 Exemplary damages: interference with smoke alarms$50.00 Insultation replaced (beneath home)$490.00 Filing fee$28.00 Total award$8,048.55 Bond to be paid to landlord$1,860.00 Balance payable by tenant to landlord$6,188.55
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,860.00 to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not attend.
Before the hearing, the tenant filed a written statement responding to the landlord’s claims. I have considered that statement, but have placed little weight on it as it is hearsay. The tenant accepted that some costs may be payable but disputed the extent of the landlord’s claims.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 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 tenancy ended on 9 February 2026.
The tenant’s written statement says the landlord arranged contractors, builders, and rubbish removal while the tenant was still attempting to vacate, and that some items may have been moved, disposed of, or interfered with before a final inspection was completed.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the tenant had not finished vacating or cleaning by the termination date, that rubbish remained at the premises, and that the landlord incurred rubbish removal costs. The tenant did not attend the hearing to give evidence or answer questions about what remained at the premises, what still had to be removed, or why the premises had not been vacated on time.
I am satisfied the tenant did not remove all rubbish on or before the vacate date. The landlord has proved rubbish removal costs of $1,034.00. I order the tenant to pay that amount.
The tenant’s written statement also disputes the dog urine cleaning claim. The tenant says the landlord has provided receipts for cleaning products, not a professional cleaning invoice, and says there is no sufficient breakdown showing why $321.40 was necessary.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that dog urine contamination was present, and that cleaning and deodorising were required. The tenant’s written statement acknowledges there may have been staining, including possible pet-related staining. I am satisfied the cleaning costs were reasonably incurred. I order the tenant to pay $321.40.
The landlord also claims two weeks’ lost rent of $930.00 while the premises were deodorised and recarpeted. The tenant’s written statement says there is no evidence the property was uninhabitable, no evidence it was actively marketed, and that builders were already scheduled.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the premises could not reasonably be re-let while deodorising and recarpeting were required because of the condition in which the premises were left. I am satisfied the landlord has proved the loss of two weeks’ rent. I order the tenant to pay $930.00.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 tenant’s written statement says the carpets showed wear and staining consistent with normal use and that the carpet replacement claim is inflated. The tenant’s statement continues that replacement was not shown to be necessary as a last resort, that the landlord relied on inconsistent quotes, and that depreciation must be allowed.
The bedroom carpet was installed in 2021 and the lounge carpet in May 2024, during the tenancy.
I accept that depreciation must be considered. I also accept that the landlord is not entitled to betterment. However, I am satisfied on the landlord’s evidence that the carpet damage was more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant’s written statement acknowledges there may have been some staining, including possible pet-related staining. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the staining and odour were sufficient to require replacement rather than ordinary cleaning only.
I have taken into account the age and condition of the carpet, including the information that the bedroom carpet was installed in 2021 and the lounge carpet in May 2024. Having done so, I am satisfied the amount claimed for carpet replacement is reasonable and proved. I order the tenant to pay $2,039.65.
The landlord also claims $2,955.50 for damage to the house. The tenant’s written statement says some items appear to be fair wear and tear, and that the claim should be reduced.
The landlord’s evidence was that the house had been recently painted. The landlord identified damage including damage to the kitchen cabinet, a burnt splashback, a hole in the bedroom door, spray paint damage to the electrical switch behind the stove, holes in bedroom and other walls, damage caused by wall fixings and hangers, replacement of gib, and damage to underfloor insulation.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that this damage occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not attend to give evidence about the cause of the damage or to establish that it was fair wear and tear.
I allow the proven amount of $2,955.50.
[Corrigendum] A separate quote for replacement of insulation beneath the home was discussed during the hearing. I am relying on the Landlord’s submission that this is the cost of replacement of the damaged insulation only, and that it has been paid for.
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.

Did the Tenant fail to quit the premises?

The landlord claims the tenant did not vacate the premises on the vacate date.
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant’s written statement says the landlord knew the tenant was still actively vacating, that contractors and builders attended, that rubbish removal was arranged, and that those actions limited the tenant’s ability to complete cleaning and removal.
I do not accept that this provides a reasonable excuse for failing to vacate on the termination date. The obligation was to give vacant possession when the tenancy ended. The landlord has produced text messages of the tenant asking for more time to move and clean the property.
The landlord’s evidence was that when she attended on the vacate date, the tenant had clearly only just started cleaning, had a trailer ready to go, and had not vacated. Police were called due to an altercation involving the landlord and the tenant. The landlord had contractors arranged who were delayed, and the landlord spent several hours dealing with the situation.
I find the tenant failed, without reasonable excuse, to quit the premises on termination. I find the tenant 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 tenant knew or ought to have known the tenancy had ended and that vacant possession was required. The effect of the unlawful act was to delay the landlord’s recovery of the premises, cause stress and inconvenience, and delay contractors who had been arranged to attend. There is a public interest in tenants vacating rental premises when their tenancy has ended.
I award exemplary damages of $200.00 for this unlawful act. Did the Tenant interfere with the means of escape from fire at the premises, during the tenancy?
The landlord claims the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms.
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. See section 40(2)(ab) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant’s written statement says the smoke alarm issue was raised and addressed during the tenancy and resolved at that time.
I accept that the issue was raised during the tenancy. However, I accept the landlord’s evidence that, at the end of the tenancy, all three smoke alarms were not working, including a recently installed alarm. The landlord’s evidence was that the tenant had previously said smoke alarms had been taken down after something was burnt and that they would be put back up. The landlord had reminded the tenant of the legal obligation.
I find the tenant interfered with, or rendered inoperative, the smoke alarms at the premises. I find the tenant 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.
Working smoke alarms are a core safety requirement. The effect of the unlawful act was to leave the premises without working smoke alarms. This was particularly concerning given the evidence of burn marks in the carpet and kitchen area. The landlord was entitled to be concerned about the safety risk and about her responsibility to provide a safe house. There is a strong public interest in deterring tenants from removing, disconnecting, or rendering smoke alarms inoperative.
I award exemplary damages of $50.00 for this unlawful act. Name Suppression
I grant the Landlord’s request for name suppression as it is the successful party.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5457269. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$1,034.00	Rubbish removal
Dog urine cleaning / deodorising	$321.40	atisfied the cleaning costs were reasonably incurred. I order the tenant to pay $321.40.
Loss of rent	$930.00	the landlord has proved the loss of two weeks’ rent. I order the tenant to pay $930.00.
Carpet replacement	$2,039.65	imed for carpet replacement is reasonable and proved. I order the tenant to pay $2,039.65.
Damage to house	$2,955.50	Damage to house
Exemplary damages: failure to quit premises	$200.00	failure to quit premises
Exemplary damages: interference with smoke alarms	$50.00	interference with smoke alarms
Insultation replaced (beneath home	$490.00	Insultation replaced (beneath home
Filing fee	$28.00	Filing fee

Order

The Landlord’s name and identifying details are suppressed.
Sasha Pare Grace Mountfort is to pay [Landlord] $6,188.55 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionLandlord Rubbish removal$1,034.00 Dog urine cleaning / deodorising$321.40 Loss of rent$930.00 Carpet replacement$2,039.65 Damage to house$2,955.50 Exemplary damages: failure to quit premises$200.00 Exemplary damages: interference with smoke alarms$50.00 Insultation replaced (beneath home)$490.00 Filing fee$28.00 Total award$8,048.55 Bond to be paid to landlord$1,860.00 Balance payable by tenant to landlord$6,188.55
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,860.00 to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not attend.
Before the hearing, the tenant filed a written statement responding to the landlord’s claims. I have considered that statement, but have placed little weight on it as it is hearsay. The tenant accepted that some costs may be payable but disputed the extent of the landlord’s claims.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 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 tenancy ended on 9 February 2026.
The tenant’s written statement says the landlord arranged contractors, builders, and rubbish removal while the tenant was still attempting to vacate, and that some items may have been moved, disposed of, or interfered with before a final inspection was completed.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the tenant had not finished vacating or cleaning by the termination date, that rubbish remained at the premises, and that the landlord incurred rubbish removal costs. The tenant did not attend the hearing to give evidence or answer questions about what remained at the premises, what still had to be removed, or why the premises had not been vacated on time.
I am satisfied the tenant did not remove all rubbish on or before the vacate date. The landlord has proved rubbish removal costs of $1,034.00. I order the tenant to pay that amount.
The tenant’s written statement also disputes the dog urine cleaning claim. The tenant says the landlord has provided receipts for cleaning products, not a professional cleaning invoice, and says there is no sufficient breakdown showing why $321.40 was necessary.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that dog urine contamination was present, and that cleaning and deodorising were required. The tenant’s written statement acknowledges there may have been staining, including possible pet-related staining. I am satisfied the cleaning costs were reasonably incurred. I order the tenant to pay $321.40.
The landlord also claims two weeks’ lost rent of $930.00 while the premises were deodorised and recarpeted. The tenant’s written statement says there is no evidence the property was uninhabitable, no evidence it was actively marketed, and that builders were already scheduled.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the premises could not reasonably be re-let while deodorising and recarpeting were required because of the condition in which the premises were left. I am satisfied the landlord has proved the loss of two weeks’ rent. I order the tenant to pay $930.00.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 tenant’s written statement says the carpets showed wear and staining consistent with normal use and that the carpet replacement claim is inflated. The tenant’s statement continues that replacement was not shown to be necessary as a last resort, that the landlord relied on inconsistent quotes, and that depreciation must be allowed.
The bedroom carpet was installed in 2021 and the lounge carpet in May 2024, during the tenancy.
I accept that depreciation must be considered. I also accept that the landlord is not entitled to betterment. However, I am satisfied on the landlord’s evidence that the carpet damage was more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant’s written statement acknowledges there may have been some staining, including possible pet-related staining. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the staining and odour were sufficient to require replacement rather than ordinary cleaning only.
I have taken into account the age and condition of the carpet, including the information that the bedroom carpet was installed in 2021 and the lounge carpet in May 2024. Having done so, I am satisfied the amount claimed for carpet replacement is reasonable and proved. I order the tenant to pay $2,039.65.
The landlord also claims $2,955.50 for damage to the house. The tenant’s written statement says some items appear to be fair wear and tear, and that the claim should be reduced.
The landlord’s evidence was that the house had been recently painted. The landlord identified damage including damage to the kitchen cabinet, a burnt splashback, a hole in the bedroom door, spray paint damage to the electrical switch behind the stove, holes in bedroom and other walls, damage caused by wall fixings and hangers, replacement of gib, and damage to underfloor insulation.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that this damage occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant did not attend to give evidence about the cause of the damage or to establish that it was fair wear and tear.
I allow the proven amount of $2,955.50.
[Corrigendum] A separate quote for replacement of insulation beneath the home was discussed during the hearing. I am relying on the Landlord’s submission that this is the cost of replacement of the damaged insulation only, and that it has been paid for.
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.

Did the Tenant fail to quit the premises?

The landlord claims the tenant did not vacate the premises on the vacate date.
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant’s written statement says the landlord knew the tenant was still actively vacating, that contractors and builders attended, that rubbish removal was arranged, and that those actions limited the tenant’s ability to complete cleaning and removal.
I do not accept that this provides a reasonable excuse for failing to vacate on the termination date. The obligation was to give vacant possession when the tenancy ended. The landlord has produced text messages of the tenant asking for more time to move and clean the property.
The landlord’s evidence was that when she attended on the vacate date, the tenant had clearly only just started cleaning, had a trailer ready to go, and had not vacated. Police were called due to an altercation involving the landlord and the tenant. The landlord had contractors arranged who were delayed, and the landlord spent several hours dealing with the situation.
I find the tenant failed, without reasonable excuse, to quit the premises on termination. I find the tenant 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 tenant knew or ought to have known the tenancy had ended and that vacant possession was required. The effect of the unlawful act was to delay the landlord’s recovery of the premises, cause stress and inconvenience, and delay contractors who had been arranged to attend. There is a public interest in tenants vacating rental premises when their tenancy has ended.
I award exemplary damages of $200.00 for this unlawful act. Did the Tenant interfere with the means of escape from fire at the premises, during the tenancy?
The landlord claims the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms.
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. See section 40(2)(ab) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant’s written statement says the smoke alarm issue was raised and addressed during the tenancy and resolved at that time.
I accept that the issue was raised during the tenancy. However, I accept the landlord’s evidence that, at the end of the tenancy, all three smoke alarms were not working, including a recently installed alarm. The landlord’s evidence was that the tenant had previously said smoke alarms had been taken down after something was burnt and that they would be put back up. The landlord had reminded the tenant of the legal obligation.
I find the tenant interfered with, or rendered inoperative, the smoke alarms at the premises. I find the tenant 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.
Working smoke alarms are a core safety requirement. The effect of the unlawful act was to leave the premises without working smoke alarms. This was particularly concerning given the evidence of burn marks in the carpet and kitchen area. The landlord was entitled to be concerned about the safety risk and about her responsibility to provide a safe house. There is a strong public interest in deterring tenants from removing, disconnecting, or rendering smoke alarms inoperative.
I award exemplary damages of $50.00 for this unlawful act. Name Suppression
I grant the Landlord’s request for name suppression as it is the successful party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5457269 — Property damage at [Address]

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5457269 — Property damage at [Address]

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the Tenant fail to quit the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the Tenant fail to quit the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions