News
Rental damage law change needed
Thursday 15th of September 2016
In the ruling in question, a Tribunal adjudicator found in favour of a Foxton tenant who let her dogs urinate in the house – even though the tenancy agreement had specified no pets were allowed.
The damage was such that carpets throughout the house had to be replaced.
However, the adjudicator found that, although the tenant had breached the agreement, it had not been established that the tenant had intended to damage the carpet.
For this reason, the tenant did not have to pay for the replacement of the carpet.
Want to read the full article?
Click the button below to subscribe and will have free unlimited access for a limited time to full article and all other articles on the site.
You will also be able to comment on articles on Good Returns.
Latest News
![[The Wrap] What the heck is happening at the FMA?](https://goodreturns.publit.io/file/c_fill,w_300,h_200/a6c3bc06-6401-44de-96e2-286c090e132d.jpg)