What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4536929?

The tribunal order states: Hoani Tuarakena Powell And Debbie Bassick As Trustees Of The Pawa Trust owe

How much money was awarded in case 4536929?

Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $385.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $4,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $595.21 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,255.00 awarded to landlord; 3 Doors: $3,417.21 awarded to landlord; Insulation: $1,748.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4536929?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4536929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10710751-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4536929?

The tribunal order states: Hoani Tuarakena Powell And Debbie Bassick As Trustees Of The Pawa Trust owe

How much money was awarded in case 4536929?

Compensation: breach of quiet enjoym…: $385.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure To Maintain: $4,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $595.21 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,255.00 awarded to landlord; 3 Doors: $3,417.21 awarded to landlord; Insulation: $1,748.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4536929?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4536929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10710751-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

67 Galway Street, Kawerau 3127 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4536929 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4536929 — net $1,540.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 20 May 2023	$2,255.00		Rent arrears to 20 May 2023
Rubbish removal and garden work	$2,000.00		Rubbish removal and garden work
Repairs: 3 doors	$3,417.21		Repairs: 3 doors
Repairs: insulation	$1,748.00		Repairs: insulation
Compensation: failure to maintain		$4,500.00	failure to maintain
Exemplary damages: failure to maintain		$2,400.00	failure to maintain
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment		$385.00	breach of quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: bond not lodged		$595.21	bond not lodged
Total award	$9,420.21	$7,880.21
Net award	$1,540.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,540.00

Order

Hoani Tuarakena Powell And Debbie Bassick As Trustees Of The Pawa Trust owe Waiwhakaata Hirirangi Helina McLaughlin $7,880.21 as calculated in table below.
Waiwhakaata Hirirangi Helina McLaughlin owes Hoani Tuarakena Powell And Debbie Bassick As Trustees Of The Pawa Trust $9,420.21, calculated as shown in table below.
As a result, Hoani Tuarakena Powell And Debbie Bassick As Trustees Of The Pawa Trust are entitled to retain the bond of $1,540.00.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for compensation of $30,0000.00 and exemplary damages for the following: -Landlord’s failure to maintain the premises and loss of amenity. -Bond not lodged. -Breach of quiet enjoyment/harassment and unlawful entry. -Interference with supply of services. -Retaliatory notice.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages in relation to an alleged retaliatory notice was considerably out of time. The notice was served on 20 February 2023, but the tenant did not raise this part of her claim until November 2023. Section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1086 (RTA) requires that any such claim must be made within 28 working days after receipt of a notice terminating the tenancy therefore the claim is out of time and must be dismissed.
This tenancy commenced on 24 February 2020 and ended on 20 May 2023.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at 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 tenant did not remove a significant amount of rubbish and the section was completely overgrown. I award $2,000.00 out of the $2,400.00 claimed as the tenant is not responsible for trimming trees and shrubs.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: 3 doors were cracked and broken with missing or broken knobs, the insulation underneath the house had been pulled out and damaged by dogs, and some base boards had been removed. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I award the amounts claimed for the doors and replacement insulation. However, I decline to make any award for the base boards as these were in a dilapidated condition and they were all being sanded back and painted by the landlord in any event.
The amounts ordered are proved. Cross application

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Waiwhakaata Hirirangi Helina McLaughlin claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must [of relevance here] provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord does not dispute that the roof was leaking, it all needs replaced, but there were delays because of the weather. The landlord says they did some repairs and leaks were fixed, but they acknowledge that this was only temporary, and the ceilings could not be repaired while the tenant was still living at the premises. The landlord says they found a ceramic pipe had been damaged underneath the premises causing sewerage problems, so all the pipes were replaced. The landlord says the tenant knew there were issues at the premises from the start and renovations were ongoing, but she insisted moving in anyway.
I find that the landlord has breached their obligations and committed an unlawful act. I say this because the tenant had to endure leaks and mouldy conditions from the start of the tenancy with missing or broken roof tiles, blocked and missing spouting, broken downpipes and a dilapidated back deck. While some work was done and the guttering and pipework was replaced, the roof problems persisted which resulting in ongoing leaks and mould on the ceilings.
The tenant complained of cockroaches at the premises due to rotten wood but there is no way of knowing if this was the cause. I find no breach in this regard.
I award $4,500.00 to the tenant as fair, reasonable and proportionate compensation for the breaches and loss of amenity. This is roughly equivalent to around 3 months’ rent.
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 landlord was fully aware of the issues, but any repairs were piecemeal, and they did not ensure the property was weathertight. The tenant and her family suffered loss as a result because some bedrooms could not be used therefore I find it ‘just’ to make an award of $2,400.00 exemplary damages which is one-third of the maximum amount available.

Did the landlord harass the tenant and enter the premises unlawfully?

Waiwhakaata Hirirangi Helina McLaughlin claims the landlord has harassed them and entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections, repairs, and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says the landlord did not always give 48 hours’ notice that he would be working outside on the deck, and it made her feel uncomfortable. The tenant says the landlord walked inside on one occasion, so she changed the lock on the gate.
I find that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises, but I do not find evidence of harassment. The landlord says the tenant agreed he could “come and go’ to carry out the repairs to the back deck although he did not dispute she told him she did not want him there all the time. The landlord says he always gave appropriate notice but was unable to provide any evidence in support.
I award one weeks rent of $385.00 for the breach as fair, reasonable and propionate compensation. The landlord clearly believed he could come and go to carry out the repairs, but this was too open ended, and I find it likely he did not always notify the tenant as he should.
The tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the landlord walked inside uninvited which he denies. This part of the claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord interfere with the services to the premises?

A landlord must not interfere with the supply of water, gas, electricity, telephone of other service to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out. See section 45(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 45(2A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Waiwhakaata Hirirangi Helina McLaughlin claims the landlord interfered with the services to the premises by blocking the back door entrance while the repairs were ongoing. The tenant says she should have been able to access to use the yard and clothesline and it took too long as she believes the landlord was there around 6 months.
I do not find any breach in this regard. The tenant was still able to use the yard and clothesline during the repairs, albeit she was inconvenienced as she to use another exit. However, the repairs were necessary, and it is reasonable for the tenant to endure some degree of discomfort without compensation. I find no evidence that the repairs were unreasonably extended or took too long.
Accordingly, this part of the claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Waiwhakaata Hirirangi Helina McLaughlin claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
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 landlord says they did not know how to lodge the bond although they knew they were supposed to.
I find they have 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.
After considering the above factors, I find it ‘just’ to make an award of $595.21 exemplary damages. I say this because this is a case where the overall respective merits and justice of the parties’ claims are evenly balanced. General compensation and awards of exemplary damages involves a number of discretionary factors. In the circumstances of this case, I find that a fair and equitable overall outcome is that the landlord retains the bond and neither party has any further liability to the other.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4536929 — net $1,540.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 20 May 2023	$2,255.00		Rent arrears to 20 May 2023
Rubbish removal and garden work	$2,000.00		Rubbish removal and garden work
Repairs: 3 doors	$3,417.21		Repairs: 3 doors
Repairs: insulation	$1,748.00		Repairs: insulation
Compensation: failure to maintain		$4,500.00	failure to maintain
Exemplary damages: failure to maintain		$2,400.00	failure to maintain
Compensation: breach of quiet enjoyment		$385.00	breach of quiet enjoyment
Exemplary damages: bond not lodged		$595.21	bond not lodged
Total award	$9,420.21	$7,880.21
Net award	$1,540.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,540.00

Order

Hoani Tuarakena Powell And Debbie Bassick As Trustees Of The Pawa Trust owe Waiwhakaata Hirirangi Helina McLaughlin $7,880.21 as calculated in table below.
Waiwhakaata Hirirangi Helina McLaughlin owes Hoani Tuarakena Powell And Debbie Bassick As Trustees Of The Pawa Trust $9,420.21, calculated as shown in table below.
As a result, Hoani Tuarakena Powell And Debbie Bassick As Trustees Of The Pawa Trust are entitled to retain the bond of $1,540.00.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for compensation of $30,0000.00 and exemplary damages for the following: -Landlord’s failure to maintain the premises and loss of amenity. -Bond not lodged. -Breach of quiet enjoyment/harassment and unlawful entry. -Interference with supply of services. -Retaliatory notice.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages in relation to an alleged retaliatory notice was considerably out of time. The notice was served on 20 February 2023, but the tenant did not raise this part of her claim until November 2023. Section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1086 (RTA) requires that any such claim must be made within 28 working days after receipt of a notice terminating the tenancy therefore the claim is out of time and must be dismissed.
This tenancy commenced on 24 February 2020 and ended on 20 May 2023.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at 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 tenant did not remove a significant amount of rubbish and the section was completely overgrown. I award $2,000.00 out of the $2,400.00 claimed as the tenant is not responsible for trimming trees and shrubs.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: 3 doors were cracked and broken with missing or broken knobs, the insulation underneath the house had been pulled out and damaged by dogs, and some base boards had been removed. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I award the amounts claimed for the doors and replacement insulation. However, I decline to make any award for the base boards as these were in a dilapidated condition and they were all being sanded back and painted by the landlord in any event.
The amounts ordered are proved. Cross application

Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Waiwhakaata Hirirangi Helina McLaughlin claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must [of relevance here] provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord does not dispute that the roof was leaking, it all needs replaced, but there were delays because of the weather. The landlord says they did some repairs and leaks were fixed, but they acknowledge that this was only temporary, and the ceilings could not be repaired while the tenant was still living at the premises. The landlord says they found a ceramic pipe had been damaged underneath the premises causing sewerage problems, so all the pipes were replaced. The landlord says the tenant knew there were issues at the premises from the start and renovations were ongoing, but she insisted moving in anyway.
I find that the landlord has breached their obligations and committed an unlawful act. I say this because the tenant had to endure leaks and mouldy conditions from the start of the tenancy with missing or broken roof tiles, blocked and missing spouting, broken downpipes and a dilapidated back deck. While some work was done and the guttering and pipework was replaced, the roof problems persisted which resulting in ongoing leaks and mould on the ceilings.
The tenant complained of cockroaches at the premises due to rotten wood but there is no way of knowing if this was the cause. I find no breach in this regard.
I award $4,500.00 to the tenant as fair, reasonable and proportionate compensation for the breaches and loss of amenity. This is roughly equivalent to around 3 months’ rent.
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 landlord was fully aware of the issues, but any repairs were piecemeal, and they did not ensure the property was weathertight. The tenant and her family suffered loss as a result because some bedrooms could not be used therefore I find it ‘just’ to make an award of $2,400.00 exemplary damages which is one-third of the maximum amount available.

Did the landlord harass the tenant and enter the premises unlawfully?

Waiwhakaata Hirirangi Helina McLaughlin claims the landlord has harassed them and entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections, repairs, and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says the landlord did not always give 48 hours’ notice that he would be working outside on the deck, and it made her feel uncomfortable. The tenant says the landlord walked inside on one occasion, so she changed the lock on the gate.
I find that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises, but I do not find evidence of harassment. The landlord says the tenant agreed he could “come and go’ to carry out the repairs to the back deck although he did not dispute she told him she did not want him there all the time. The landlord says he always gave appropriate notice but was unable to provide any evidence in support.
I award one weeks rent of $385.00 for the breach as fair, reasonable and propionate compensation. The landlord clearly believed he could come and go to carry out the repairs, but this was too open ended, and I find it likely he did not always notify the tenant as he should.
The tenant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the landlord walked inside uninvited which he denies. This part of the claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord interfere with the services to the premises?

A landlord must not interfere with the supply of water, gas, electricity, telephone of other service to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out. See section 45(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 45(2A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Waiwhakaata Hirirangi Helina McLaughlin claims the landlord interfered with the services to the premises by blocking the back door entrance while the repairs were ongoing. The tenant says she should have been able to access to use the yard and clothesline and it took too long as she believes the landlord was there around 6 months.
I do not find any breach in this regard. The tenant was still able to use the yard and clothesline during the repairs, albeit she was inconvenienced as she to use another exit. However, the repairs were necessary, and it is reasonable for the tenant to endure some degree of discomfort without compensation. I find no evidence that the repairs were unreasonably extended or took too long.
Accordingly, this part of the claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Waiwhakaata Hirirangi Helina McLaughlin claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
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 landlord says they did not know how to lodge the bond although they knew they were supposed to.
I find they have 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.
After considering the above factors, I find it ‘just’ to make an award of $595.21 exemplary damages. I say this because this is a case where the overall respective merits and justice of the parties’ claims are evenly balanced. General compensation and awards of exemplary damages involves a number of discretionary factors. In the circumstances of this case, I find that a fair and equitable overall outcome is that the landlord retains the bond and neither party has any further liability to the other.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4536929 — Property damage at 67 Galway Street, Kawerau 3127

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4536929 — Property damage at 67 Galway Street, Kawerau 3127

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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 landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Did the landlord harass the tenant and enter the premises unlawfully?

Did the landlord interfere with the services to the premises?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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 landlord fail to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair?

Did the landlord harass the tenant and enter the premises unlawfully?

Did the landlord interfere with the services to the premises?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions