What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5117248?

The tribunal order states: Kassandra-Jae Pearson must pay Auckland Property Management Solutions

How much money was awarded in case 5117248?

Carjam Report (By Consent: $13.95 awarded to landlord; Compensation: failing to ensure prop…: $590.00 awarded to tenant; Consent: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing - Composite Test: $264.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $904.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $75.15 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $440.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $585.17 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5117248?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5117248?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11931470-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5117248?

The tribunal order states: Kassandra-Jae Pearson must pay Auckland Property Management Solutions

How much money was awarded in case 5117248?

Carjam Report (By Consent: $13.95 awarded to landlord; Compensation: failing to ensure prop…: $590.00 awarded to tenant; Consent: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing - Composite Test: $264.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $904.95 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $75.15 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $440.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $585.17 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5117248?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5117248?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11931470-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

45 Roberts Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5117248 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5117248 — net $3,461.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Window repairs (by consent	$904.95		Window repairs (by consent
Rubbish removal (by consent	$585.17		Rubbish removal (by consent
Remove child gate and repair damage (by consent	$75.15		Remove child gate and repair damage (by consent
Carjam report (by consent	$13.95		Carjam report (by consent
Insurance excess for repairing hole in living room wall (by	$700.00		Insurance excess for repairing hole in living room wall (by
consent	$700.00		consent
Cleaning, lawns and garden work	$200.00		Cleaning, lawns and garden work
Meth testing - composite test	$264.44		Meth testing - composite test
Lock/key replacement	$440.00		Lock/key replacement
Exemplary damages (exceeding number of permitted tenants	$200.00		Exemplary damages (exceeding number of permitted tenants
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: failing to ensure property met Healthy Home		$590.00	failing to ensure property met Healthy Home
Total award	$4,110.66	$590.00
Net award	$3,461.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,461.73

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5117248 — net $3,461.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.

Claim

Landlord

Tenant

Reason

Window repairs (by consent

$904.95

Window repairs (by consent

Rubbish removal (by consent

$585.17

Rubbish removal (by consent

Remove child gate and repair damage (by consent

$75.15

Remove child gate and repair damage (by consent

Carjam report (by consent

$13.95

Carjam report (by consent

Insurance excess for repairing hole in living room wall (by

$700.00

Insurance excess for repairing hole in living room wall (by

consent

$700.00

consent

Cleaning, lawns and garden work

$200.00

Cleaning, lawns and garden work

Meth testing - composite test

$264.44

Meth testing - composite test

Lock/key replacement

$440.00

Lock/key replacement

Exemplary damages (exceeding number of permitted tenants

$200.00

Exemplary damages (exceeding number of permitted tenants

Filing fee reimbursement

$27.00

Filing fee reimbursement

Compensation: failing to ensure property met Healthy Home

$590.00

failing to ensure property met Healthy Home

Total award

$4,110.66

$590.00

Net award

$3,461.73

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

$3,461.73

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Smythe and Ms Young.

The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant has applied for reimbursement of her bond, compensation and exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenancy began on 18 November 2023 and ended following an order of the Tribunal on 8 November 2024.

The bond of $2,360 was released to the landlord by agreement following the end of the tenancy to cover rent arrears ($1,610.03) and water rates arrears ($691.04). The remaining balance of $58.93 was released to the landlord to cover repairs but there does not seem to have been any agreement between the parties as to exactly what that amount was to cover. I have therefore nominally included that amount in the calculation above. Landlord’s claim Compensation

At the hearing today the tenant said that she agreed to a number of the landlord’s claims for compensation and orders are therefore made by consent for the following items: a. Window repairs - $904.95 b. Rubbish removal - $585.17 c. Removing child gate and repairing associated damage - $75.15 d. Carjam report - $13.95 e. Insurance excess for repairing hole in living room wall - $700.00 f. Insurance excess for repairing hole in bedroom wall - $700.00

The tenant did not agree to the landlord’s claim for cleaning, changing locks, lawns and garden work or methamphetamine testing or remediation. These are therefore all considered below. Cleaning, lawns and garden work

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 said that the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord said that more cleaning was needed inside, and that the outside needed mowing and weeding and reinstatement in some areas.

The landlord produced both entry and exit inspection photos of the tenancy, and said that the property had not been cleaned properly and that the garden was very unkempt and that the tenant had kept a dog that had dug holes and damaged areas in the lawn.

The landlord has done the cleaning themselves and seeks compensation. It was difficult to establish the exact amount claimed by the landlord as some of the breakdown for cleaning tasks also included rubbish removal, which has been agreed by the tenant. The landlord has claimed for the time spent cleaning, mowing and weeding.

The tenant said that she was left to move out alone with two small children and that she did her best in the circumstances. She acknowledged that she sprayed the oven with oven cleaner but did not have time to clean it out. She said that she vacuumed and mopped and that the property is tired and will only ever look so good. She said that the garden flooded during rain which was the reason there were bare patches of lawn.

A tenant does not need to leave a property spotless and ready for a new tenant to move into. They only need to leave it reasonably clean and tidy. It is expected that a landlord will need to do additional cleaning before another tenant moves in.

Having reviewed the photos I consider that the property was close to being reasonably clean and tidy. The oven needed wiping out and there were cupboards that were not emptied out and some surfaces that were not wiped down.

With regard to the outside, it is clear that the lawns had not been mowed for some time and that weeds had been left to grow. While some of the condition of the lawn might have been due to flooding I consider that it is more likely that the condition was due to the dog kept for a time outside. This is because the landlord produced photos from the same month the previous year and the lawn appears to be in good condition.

Overall I consider that the landlord is entitled to some compensation to get the property up to the “reasonably clean and tidy” standard. I consider $200.00 to be reasonable in all the circumstances. Lock/key replacement

The landlord said that the tenant did not return the keys and that they were concerned about security as there were additional people staying at the property and that the police had attended and discovered evidence of drug use.

The landlord produced an invoice in the amount of $440.00 for changing the locks.

The tenant said that the property managers were there while she was moving out and should have asked her for the keys. She said that the landlord had arranged to change the locks anyway.

Returning the key at the end of the tenancy is an obligation of the tenant. See section 40(1)(e)(iv) RTA. The tenant did not return the keys and the landlord is entitled to claim the cost of changing the locks from the tenant. Methamphetamine testing and remediation

The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost methamphetamine testing and remediation.

The landlord must prove that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination, or that it was caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s consent. The landlord must also prove that, as a result of the contamination, the premises have been damaged or are not reasonably clean.

Section 138C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for regulations to be made prescribing the maximum acceptable level for contaminants, but as yet no regulations have been made in relation to methamphetamine.

There are currently two sources of guidance on the issue of a safe level of methamphetamine contamination in residential premises. In June 2017 Standards New Zealand published NZS 8510:2017. The standard recommended a maximum contamination level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 for high use areas where contamination has resulted from both consumption and manufacture. It recommended a higher level of 3.8μg/100cm 2 for limited use areas.

In May 2018 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, the then Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor, released a report "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards”. The report noted that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove that low-level third-hand methamphetamine exposure poses a health risk to humans. It stated that guidelines should be proportionate to risk and that exposure to a level below 15μg/100cm 2 was unlikely to have an adverse effect. It recommended retaining the level of 1.5μg/100cm 2 where contamination resulted from manufacture, due to the risk posed by harmful chemicals used in the process.

The District Court has held that remediation should be carried out in accordance with the prevailing guidelines at the time (Diamond Real Estate Limited v Allan [2017] NZDC 833, Judge Kellar).

The Tribunal has generally applied the Gluckman recommendation. This approach was approved by the District Court in Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947, where the Court stated (at para [36]): The Tenancy Tribunal was in a difficult position. The best state of knowledge of risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination available to the adjudicator was the Gluckman Report. It would have been bold for the adjudicator to have ignored that report in favour of the New Zealand Standard given that the Gluckman report represents the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination in dwellings.

The District Court took a similar approach in Acme Realty Limited v Hogg and others [2021] NZDC 3231, where the Court referred to the Full Circle case and held that, because NZS 8510:2017 has not been adopted into law, the Tribunal was not bound to apply the 1.5μg standard.

More recently, in Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, both parties presented scientific evidence at a hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no new scientific research to change the conclusions reached in the Gluckman Report.

The landlord produced a report dated 17 November 2023 (the day before this tenancy began) showing that no presence of methamphetamine at the property.

The landlord said that the Police executed a search warrant at the property on 21 June 2024. During the search the Police found utensils used in the consumption of methamphetamine. The landlord produced an email from the Detective Constable who attended the search, confirming the findings.

At the end of the tenancy the landlord arranged for a composite test to be done. The landlord produced a report dated 12 November 2024 showing that 7 areas had been sampled, the average results was 0.69μg/100cm 2 and that the theoretical maximum of any one result was 4.8μg/100cm 2. . The landlord claims the cost of this report and produced an invoice in the amount of $264.44.

The landlord then arranged for testing of the individual samples. This report found individual readings as follows:

The landlord claims the cost of this report and produced and invoice in the amount of $724.10 for this test.

The landlord has cleaned and painted the toilet and claims the cost of $99.00 for doing so.

The tenant opposed the landlord’s claims, noting that all levels found were well below the Gluckman standard.

I consider that the landlord is entitled to compensation for the cost of obtaining the first composite report. Having been advised that the Police had found utensils used for the consumption of methamphetamine at the property the only responsible course for the landlord was to have the property tested. The cost of this initial composite test is proved.

I do not consider that the landlord is entitled to compensation for obtaining the second report, or cleaning and painting the toilet, because the theoretical maximum level for any one room identified in the first report was 4.8μg/100cm 2 , well below the Gluckman standard. While it is commendable that the landlord still went ahead with further testing and cleaning, there was no requirement for them to do so. Exemplary damages

The landlord seeks exemplary damages on the basis that the tenant has permitted the property to be used for an unlawful purpose, has exceeded the number of people permitted in the tenancy, and provided a false reference at the start of the tenancy. Exceeding number of tenants

The landlord claims that the number of people living at the premises exceeds the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement.

Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. See section 40(3) 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 $1,000.00. See section 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenancy agreement specifies that the maximum number of three people may live in the premises during the tenancy, being the tenant and her two children.

The landlord said that in fact the tenant’s ex-partner and his cousin were also living in the property. In support of their claim the landlord said that: a. The additional people were frequently present during inspections; b. That mail addressed to them was delivered to the address (evidence produced); c. That the Police confirmed that they attended at the property on three occasions between 21 June 2024 and 1 October 2024 and that the tenant’s partner and his cousin were there on each occasion.

The tenant said that her ex-partner and his cousin needed a place to stay temporarily but were not living at the property. She disputed the evidence provided by the Police.

I find, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant’s ex-partner and his cousin were living at the property and were not there only temporarily. I consider this to be more likely than not because they were receiving mail at the address and regularly were regularly seen there.

The tenant has allowed additional people to live in the tenancy and by doing so has breached her obligations.

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.

I consider that it would be just to make a small award of exemplary damages.

It is in the public interest to ensure that tenants do not permit additional people to live at the tenancy. There were not sufficient rooms in this tenancy for the number people living there. Additional tenants also cause increased wear and tear.

The tenant has allowed this situation to occur but I consider it likely that she has been taken advantage of to some extent. I consider that an award of $200.00 is appropriate taking into account all of the relevant factors. Unlawful purpose

The landlord claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by by using the premises for the consumption of methamphetamine.

A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Methamphetamine is class A controlled drug and consumption is unlawful under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Exemplary damages are different from compensation. They are not intended to compensate the landlord. They are a financial penalty intended to punish and deter.

The tenant was adamant that she does not use methamphetamine and would not allow it to be used around her children. She accepted that her ex-partner had used methamphetamine but said that she did not agree to him doing so and was not aware that he had done so in the property.

I do not consider that it would be just to make an order for exemplary damages in these circumstances as I do not consider that the tenant had the necessary intention. I find it equally likely that the tenant was unaware that methamphetamine use was occurring in the property. The tenant was forthright in her evidence and I find her evidence to be consistent with the very low levels found.

The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages for unlawful use is dismissed. Giving false reference

The landlord said that the tenant used her ex-partner as a reference and that they claimed to be landlord and tenant when in fact they had been tenants in the same tenancy. The landlord said that they relied on this reference and would not have let the property to the tenant if they had understood the real situation.

The tenant denied that she had given a false reference. She said that she paid her share of the rent to her ex-partner so in one sense he was her landlord.

In some circumstances the provision of a false reference might amount to a misrepresentation giving grounds for cancelling a tenancy agreement. However the tenancy in this case has already ended. The landlord was unable to refer me to any section of the RTA which provides that the provision of a false reference is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages can be awarded.

The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages for giving a false reference is therefore dismissed. Failing to reinstate property following minor change

The landlord claimed that the tenant failed to reinstate the door frame after installing the child door and seeks exemplary damages under section 42(B)(6) RTA. This section provides that failing to reinstate following a minor change is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages are available.

As discussed at the hearing, I do not consider that exemplary damages are available as section 42(B) relates to situations where a tenant has requested that the landlord consent for a minor fixture, renovation, alteration and addition, the landlord agrees on the basis that the tenant will reinstate the property, but the tenant fails to do so.

In my view section 42(B)(6) does not apply as the child door was not a consented minor change.

In this case the landlord is entitled to compensation for the damage in the usual way pursuant to section 45(2) RTA. The amount claimed has been agreed by the tenant and is ordered.

The landlord’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Tenant’s claim Compensation and exemplary damages

The tenant seeks compensation for breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligations and failure to comply with the Healthy Homes standards by the compliance date.

She seeks exemplary damages for the breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligations, Healthy Homes obligations, for not lodging the bond on time and for breach of quiet enjoyment. Maintenance

The tenant said that the landlord did not property maintain the property.

Section 45(1)(A) RTA provides that the landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.

The tenant said that the front deck railing was safety hazard as it was sharp but the landlord could not get a new part and so taped a pool noodle over the top of it. She said that she issued a 14 day notice but it was not fixed. She said that it was properly fixed after she moved out.

The tenant provided very little evidence on this issue. The area could only just be seen in the landlord’s photos. In my view this was a very minor issue. The landlord made the area safe until it could be properly fixed.

This claim for compensation is dismissed. The tenant also sought exemplary damages for breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligations but as this claim is not proved exemplary damages will not be considered. Healthy Homes standards

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.

This tenancy began on 18 November 2023 and so the compliance date for the tenancy was 18 March 2024. This date was recorded in the tenancy agreement.

The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.

The tenant says that the landlord has a Healthy Homes assessment done on 15 November 2023 which found that the there were noticeable draughts and that the gutters, down pipes and drains were insufficient. She said that the gutters were cleaned on 24 March 2024 and the draught stopping was done in June 2024, both after the compliance date 1 .

The landlord accepted that there had been an oversight and that the work had been completed after the Healthy Homes compliance date.

The tenant is entitled to some compensation. She has been paying rent for a property that should have complied on the compliance date but did not.

In considering the amount of compensation that should be payable I consider that the following factors are relevant: a. The Healthy Homes Standards are mandatory obligations on landlord to ensure that rental properties meet certain minimum standards. 1 The tenant also raised the issue of a part of the gutter that was damaged while being cleaned, and required replacing, but I consider that to be maintenance matter (rather than a Healthy Homes matter) and the landlord appears to have acted promptly once made aware of this issue. b. There was no evidence before me of the impact on the tenant but it can be assumed that the property may have been colder and more damp that it otherwise would have been (due to draughts). c. The period of non-compliance was short: i. The compliance date was 18 March 2024. The drainage was completed 6 days after the compliance date. ii. The draught stopping was completed just over two months after the compliance date.

Taking into account those factors I consider that compensation of one week of rent is appropriate compensation to the tenant ($590.00).

The tenant also seeks exemplary damages for this breach. Breaching the Healthy Homes Standards is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).

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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.

I do not consider that it would be just to make an award of exemplary damages in this instance. The breach by the landlord was unintentional and due to oversight. My impression was that the breach occurred because the draught stopping was being completed as part of a number of minor repairs that were required. The impact has been relatively minor. The breach was readily acknowledged by the landlord who accepted that the work should have been done earlier and apologies to the tenant. Bond

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant says that she paid the bond on 17 November 2023 but did not receive until 10 January 2024.

The landlord said that they received the bond on 17 November 2024 but did not immediately lodge it as they were awaiting the return of the signed bond lodgement form by the tenant. They said that they followed up with the tenant on Friday 15 December 2023 and they always lodge bonds on Fridays so lodged the bond the following Friday, 22 December 2025 (two days late).

I find that the landlord has breached their obligations in respect of the bond. The bond should have been lodged within 23 days after the payment was received, even if this meant making a one-off payment of this bond on a different day.

I do not consider that it would be just to award exemplary damages in this instance. The bond was lodged only two days late, partly due to the tenant not returning the bond form in a timely manner. The landlord always intended to lodge the bond. There has been no impact on the tenant. Breach of quiet enjoyment

The tenant also included a claim for breach of quiet enjoyment.

Tenants are entitled to “quiet enjoyment” of the property under section 38(1) RTA. This means that they are entitled to live in the property without undue interference by the landlord.

I understood the tenant’s claim, as set out in her application and presented at the hearing, to be in regard to the landlord’s breach of the Healthy Homes standards.

There was no evidence of any interference with the tenant’s ability to use the property free from interference by the landlord.

The tenant’s claim for breach of quiet enjoyment is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression

Because Auckland Property Management Solutions Limited as agent for David Orion Borges has substantially succeeded with the disputed part of their claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. The tenant has had more limited success.

The landlord did not seek an order for name suppression. The tenant is not entitled to an order for name suppression as she has not been the “substantially successful” party. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5117248 — net $3,461.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Window repairs (by consent	$904.95		Window repairs (by consent
Rubbish removal (by consent	$585.17		Rubbish removal (by consent
Remove child gate and repair damage (by consent	$75.15		Remove child gate and repair damage (by consent
Carjam report (by consent	$13.95		Carjam report (by consent
Insurance excess for repairing hole in living room wall (by	$700.00		Insurance excess for repairing hole in living room wall (by
consent	$700.00		consent
Cleaning, lawns and garden work	$200.00		Cleaning, lawns and garden work
Meth testing - composite test	$264.44		Meth testing - composite test
Lock/key replacement	$440.00		Lock/key replacement
Exemplary damages (exceeding number of permitted tenants	$200.00		Exemplary damages (exceeding number of permitted tenants
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: failing to ensure property met Healthy Home		$590.00	failing to ensure property met Healthy Home
Total award	$4,110.66	$590.00
Net award	$3,461.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,461.73