What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4574449 about?

The tribunal order states: Nand Investments Limited Maureen Nand must pay [The tenant/s] $3,170.44

How much money was awarded in case 4574449?

Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4574449?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4574449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9890761-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4574449 about?

The tribunal order states: Nand Investments Limited Maureen Nand must pay [The tenant/s] $3,170.44

How much money was awarded in case 4574449?

Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4574449?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4574449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9890761-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

13A Louvain Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4574449 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4574449 — net $3,670.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: Breach of s19(2) RTA Bond	$750.00	Breach of s19(2) RTA Bond
Exemplary damages: Breach of s 45 (1A) RTA HIR1947	$2,400.00	Breach of s 45 (1A) RTA HIR1947
Exemplary damages: Breach of s16 A RTA	$500.00	Breach of s16 A RTA
Net award	$3,670.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,670.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4574449 — net $3,670.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: Breach of s19(2) RTA Bond	$750.00	Breach of s19(2) RTA Bond
Exemplary damages: Breach of s 45 (1A) RTA HIR1947	$2,400.00	Breach of s 45 (1A) RTA HIR1947
Exemplary damages: Breach of s16 A RTA	$500.00	Breach of s16 A RTA
Net award	$3,670.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,670.44

Order

Nand Investments Limited Maureen Nand must pay [The tenant/s] $3,170.44 immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee and exemplary damages, as calculated and set out below: DescriptionTenant Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Exemplary damages: Breach of s19(2) RTA Bond $750.00 Exemplary damages: Breach of s 45 (1A) RTA HIR1947 $2,400.00 Exemplary damages: Breach of s16 A RTA$500.00 Total award $3,670.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $3,670.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, Mr Manish Awasthi (Manish) and Mrs Johanna Badenhorst-Awasthi (Johanna) the tenants, and Mrs Maureen Nand (Maureen), the landlord and Ms Seema Woollaston (Seema) and Mr Sanjeev Nand (Sanjeev), the landlords’ adult children.
Seema and Sanjeev were assisting their mother at the hearing. Background: Case management hearing
There was a case management hearing held before me and an order issued on 3 July 2023 regarding the matters raised at that hearing. After discussions with the parties the following issues were identified as relevant for the Tribunal to determine at the next hearing: -Failure to lodge the bond. -Failure to appoint an agent. -Breach of work order – however there had not been any work orders directed so that matter was dismissed. -Failure to maintain. -Unconsented conversion of the property -Failure to comply with building, health, and safety under any enactment. -Breach of Healthy Homes Standards under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) -Breach of quiet enjoyment -Unlawful entry -Retaliatory Notice
A full day hearing was scheduled, and the parties advised how many witnesses they may have and any relevant further documentation that maybe required. The property
The property consisted of two separate dwellings on the one property. The front dwelling was split into two separate rental properties, upstairs and a downstairs unit. The landlord lived in another separate dwelling behind the front house.
Prior to 2019 the front house had been managed by Maureen’s late husband. Maureen took over the management when her husband had become serious ill and continued after his death, until she sold the property in May 2023.
The tenants had rented the bottom floor unit from the landlord from 1 August 2014 until 17 August 2023. However, Johanna had moved out in 2019, but continued to visit her husband until he left in August 2023.
There were other tenants upstairs in the front house.
There appears to have been a reasonably friendly relationship between landlord and tenants until the beginning of 2023.
I have found all 5 parties in this hearing to be reliable, diligent and honest people. The landlord has conceded several things but strongly refutes other claims. I have absolutely no doubt that all parties came to the hearing with a genuine desire to be helpful. The tenants expressed strong feelings of disappointment, inconvenience, and stress with how things evolved over 2023 with the tenancy. Work order
The tenant’s application mentioned breach of a work order. This is incorrect as there had been no previous work orders directed. The tenants did not pursue this claim and it is dismissed. Conceded issues.
Sanjeev concedes several issues on behalf of the landlord: Bond a) The bond was not lodge with the bond centre. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states the following regarding the breach of a landlord to lodge the 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 landlord has 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.
I am awarding the tenants the sum of $750.00 for the landlord’s breach of the RTA. As I stated in the hearing the RTA takes a serious view of the failure to lodge a tenant’s bond. This is the tenant’s money, and it is intended to be held until the end of the tenancy at the bond centre.
An aggravating feature for the Tribunal is that this was an experienced landlord who had managed his properties since 2000 and had lodge other tenants’ bond as required. Breach s45 RTA – kitchen/ other breaches s45
The RTA at s45 states the following: Under section 45, a landlord must: -provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. -provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. -comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 -comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety. (Which covers HIR s 4 & 5 Minimum standards of fitness for houses) -provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply.
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. Kitchen
The tenant’s unit did not have a working kitchen. Throughout the nine years they lived at the property they did not have the means to bake. The only cooking provision provided was a two-ring hot plate and microwave.
These are not adequate kitchen facilities under the RTA nor the Home Improvement Regulations 1947(HIR), which were applicable when the tenancy began.
The landlord accepts that the kitchen was not adequate. I find the landlord has 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.
A tenant must have the means to cook in their home. The tenants claimed that they could not bake or cook as they would have liked because of the poor facilities provided.
Sanjeev, for the landlord accepts that they have failed to comply with their obligations under s45 of the RTA regarding kitchen facilities and they could have done better.
I am awarding the tenants $2400.00 in exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to comply with the requirements. Remaining Healthy Homes Standards and Breaches of s45 RTA claims:
The tenants have complained that the landlord has failed to maintain the property, in relation to heating, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage standards. Heating
The tenants claim that the landlord made no effort to comply with heating standards. They claim that they were provided with old heaters at the start of the tenancy, but they broke. They purchased their own oil heaters, but the landlord claimed that they were using too much power, so they limited their use of the heaters.
The landlord stated, which is not in dispute, that they provided heaters at the start of the tenancy in 2014. That the heaters were compliant with the regulations under Home Improvement Act 1947. The tenancy predates the Healthy Homes Standards as in the RTA.
The landlord advised that the tenants chose to provide their own heaters.
I do not find that the landlord has intentional committed an unlawful act relating to the heating. Insulation 21 the tenants claim that the ceiling and underfloor insulation is insufficient and needs to be topped up and/or replaced.
The landlord claimed that pink bats were installed in the walls and ceilings under the government subsidy scheme. However, underfloor insulation has not been installed as the floor is concrete and there is no crawl space underneath to install insulation. The underfloor insulation is exempt as it is not possible to install it.
The landlord is correct regarding the position of underfloor insulation where it is not possible to install it due to the nature of the building.
I do not find that the tenants have proven their claim in regard to insulation. Drainage, draught stopping and moisture ingress- maintenance.
The property was built in the 1940’s and on sloping land.
The tenants claim that in the colder months the windows weep and water seeps into the garage during heavy rain fall. The tenants provided photographs of soaking carpets and heavy leaking in the bedroom under the door.
The landlord accepts that there has been an ongoing issue with water seeping into the unit during heavy rain. However, that the landlord has taken numerous steps to rectify the problems.
The landlord states that they are compliant with guttering and drainage requirements, but that it is not reasonably practicable to install a ground moisture barrier due to the concrete flooring.
The landlord claimed that significant remedial work was carried out in the late 1990’s to the back of the property to rectify water drainage issues. Furthermore, that they have a maintenance man, Tony Whitfield (Tony) , who regularly cleans out the drains and gutters.
The landlord called Tony at the hearing to give evidence of the maintenance work that he has done on the property. Tony confirmed that he has done maintenance work on the property between 2019 and 2023. Tony carried out work on the bathroom, fixed minor things in the units such as broken windows, repairs to the bathroom vanity, repairs to upstairs shower and a toilet leak.
The landlord advised that a plumber came in 2018 and 2019 to fix water issues. The plumber provided water proofing and new drainage in the front and down the sides of the property to divert the flow of rainwater away from the house. The landlord states that the extreme weather conditions in 2023 were the cause of the water leaks in 2023. During these occasions, the landlord inspected the unit and offered and provided a dehumidifier and carpet cleaning.
The landlord stated that some maintenance issues that have been raised are correct. However, the age and design of the house has been the cause for issues rather than a lack of maintenance over the years. That landlord claims that the 1940’s design is inadequate for today’s standards and some things cannot be fix, such as the underfloor insulation.
Dampness claims were more related to the need to ventilate the home and the need for the tenants to tidy up the unit, according to the landlord.
Gaps in the windows were remedied according to the landlord by adding rubber draught sealers around the kitchen door and windows. The tenants confirm that the landlord has applied draught stoppers to the kitchen door.
I find that there has been an ongoing issue with water ingress, however the landlord has sought to do all they can to remedy the issues by employing drainlayers and plumbers over the years to rectify the problem. When significant issues have arisen over the water leaks and seepage, the landlord has responded appropriately by inspecting the property, using dehumidifiers and carpet cleaners.
I do not find the landlord has intentionally committed an unlawful act. Smoke alarms
The tenant claim that despite complaints to the landlord that smoke alarms were not installed into the property until 29 June 2020.
The landlord claimed that smoke alarms were installed at the start of the tenancy. The landlord noticed during a routine inspection that the smoke alarm had been removed. The maintenance that the landlord did while the tenant was overseas in 2022 was to reinstall the smoke alarms and replace the batteries.
The Tribunal has been provided with a copy of the original tenancy agreement and attached Terms and Conditions and Inventory for the bottom unit dated 1 August 2014. In the inventory it states and both parties have sign it, saying that there were 4 smoke alarms in the unit at the start of the tenancy.
The tenants have not proven their claims for smoke alarms. Ventilation
The tenants claim that there is no ventilation in the kitchen or bathroom.
The landlord advised that the unit cannot accommodate a ventilation system in the ceiling cavity as it is not deep enough to allow this. That there are external windows in every room and particularly in the kitchen and the bathroom.
The landlord claims to be exempt from this regulation as it is not reasonably practicable to install due to the ceiling cavity not being deep enough. That the landlord had no intention of failing to comply with the regulations and there has been no harm done to the tenant as a result.
Exemptions apply to kitchens and bathrooms where it is not reasonably practicable to install extractor fans. Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 Section 23 Mechanical ventilation standard for kitchens and bathrooms (1) Each kitchen and bathroom in the premises must have installed in it— (a) an extractor fan; or (b) qualifying ventilation. (2) For a kitchen that has an extractor fan,— (a) the fan and all exhaust ducting must have a diameter of at least 150 mm; or (b) the fan and all exhaust ducting must have an exhaust capacity of at least 50ℓ/s. (3) For a bathroom that has an extractor fan,— (a) the fan and all exhaust ducting must have a diameter of at least 120 mm; or (b) the fan and all exhaust ducting must have an exhaust capacity of at least 25ℓ/s. Section 24 Exemption from mechanical ventilation standard if extractor fan not reasonably practicable to install. (1) A kitchen or bathroom need not comply with regulation 23 if all of the following apply: (2) at the commencement of the tenancy,— (i) the room does not have an extractor fan or qualifying ventilation: (ii) it is not reasonably practicable to install an extractor fan so as to comply with the requirements of regulation 23(2) and (3): (b) when the room was built or converted into a kitchen or bathroom, not having an extractor fan was lawful: (c) if not having an extractor fan was lawful only because the room met alternative ventilation requirements, at the commencement of the tenancy the room still meets those requirements. (2)This exemption ceases to apply if, during the term of the tenancy, it becomes reasonably practicable to install an extractor fan so as to comply with the requirements of regulation 23(2) and (3).
It is not disputed that there are external windows in every room in the unit, particularly the kitchen and bathroom. The window in the bathroom is next to the shower and there is one next to the kitchen cooking area. All windows open.
I do not find that the landlord has intentionally failed to comply with the regulations relating to ventilation. The tenants have failed to prove their claim relating to ventilation.

Was there a failure to provide a Healthy Homes Statement?

The tenants claim that the HHS have not been complied with and that the landlord has not carried out an inspection to see what is specifically needed to comply with HHS.
Has the landlord failed to provide a written statement in the tenancy agreement that he complies with the Healthy Homes Standards. Under section 13A(1CA) RTA a landlord has an obligation to provide a statement in the tenancy agreement that they will comply with the Healthy Homes standard and regulations. This obligation does not however apply to tenancies that started before 1 December 2020 such as this tenancy. So, section 13A(1CA) does not apply. Unconsented conversion
The tenants claim that the property was an unlawful premises as the downstairs unit was an unconsented dwelling.
The landlord has provided documentation from Auckland City Council and Christopher Swain an Architectural Designer that confirm that the property is not an unlawful premise.
I am dismissing the tenants claim that the property was unlawful. Unlawful entry
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
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 and 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.
Manish went overseas for two months in October 2022. Prior to leaving he met with Maureen for a routine inspection. The premises needed some minor maintenance and there was a brief discussion about Manish granting consent to enter the property for the purposes of the maintenance while he was away.
Manish stated in the hearing that he asked Maureen to do the work when he got back from his holiday or alternatively email him prior to entering the premises, to obtain his permission. His concern was having unknown people in his home while he was away. Manish claims that he did not give consent for the landlord to enter the property.
Maureen claims that she obtained verbal consent from Manish before he left on his holiday, that she could enter the property for the purpose of maintenance. Maureen stated that if she did not have consent, she would have emailed Manish to get it.
The tenant from the upstairs unit, Stephano Antonakos (Stephano), is an electrician and was engaged to carry out the maintenance work in the property. Stephano gave evidence at the hearing that he carried out the work and that Maureen believed she had Manish’s consent to be in the property.
Stephano told Manish when he got back from his holiday that Maureen and he had been in the property a few times to carry out the maintenance.
I find that the landlord did believe she had consent to go into the property while Manish was away for the purpose of maintenance.
The landlord has not committed an unlawful act. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has breach their right to quiet enjoyment of their home.
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.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenants claim that the landlord allowed the upstairs tenant to use a carport in front of their unit but refused to allow them to park on the property. During the tenancy, the upstairs tenants put two cars and a scooter outside their unit obstructing the entrance to their home. Their unit has a small concrete area immediately outside their front door which provided some outdoor sitting space for them to use. Once the scooter was parked on this area, they did not have use of it.
The tenants say that in addition to the cars and scooter hindering their access to their home, the rubbish bins for both units were also kept right outside their front door. The tenants complained of pungent odours coming from the bins into their home.
The tenants asked the landlord to remove the scooter and bins from outside their home. The tenants say that the landlord did not assistance with the parking issues and advised that there were no other suitable places to put the bins than where they were.
The landlord stated that the upstairs tenancy included a carpark, and this was reflected in the rent they paid. That the Manish and Joanna had enough space to access their property as there was a gap between the carport and the unit.
The landlord said that the tenant never raised the issue of the rubbish bin placement with them and that there was nothing preventing the tenants from locating the bins elsewhere.
The landlord’s position is that they rubbish bins and car parking complaints are not “behaviour directed towards the tenants” but just part of general living noises, and behaviour that is sometimes disruptive but does not amount to harassment.
I do not find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act. Retaliatory Notice
On 2 January 2023, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 9 February 2023. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory. The tenants claim that they have a fixed term tenancy with an end date of August 2023.
The tenants say that the notice was given to them as a result of the deterioration of the relationship between the parties. The property was or had been put on the market for sale and the landlord had complained that they needed to tidy up the exterior and interior of the unit.
The tenant provided an email between the landlord and tenant where these issues were discussed, and a suggestion was made that they need to leave earlier.
However, it is not in dispute and the landlord acknowledged that they were wrong about their ability to terminate a fixed term tenancy with 28 days’ notice. The landlord accepts that they gave insufficient notice to the tenants.
The tenant did stay until the end of the fixed term tenancy which was August 2023. The new owner of the property took possession on 25 May 2023.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims that they made a genuine mistake in the notice given to the tenant and that they rectified it. Seema and Sanjeev apologised to the tenants. The rent was subsequently reduced to half the normal rent for 6 weeks to accommodate the open homes that were taking place.
I do not find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act. Failure to appoint Agent.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has been overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A (1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. S16A RTA - Landlord must have agent if out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days: (1) A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure that the landlord has an agent in New Zealand. (2) A landlord who does not already have an agent and who knows that he or she will be out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must appoint an agent before he or she departs from New Zealand. (3) A landlord who does not already have an agent and who has been out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must promptly appoint an agent. (4) A landlord who appoints an agent under this section must, immediately after appointing the agent,— (a) notify the tenant of the agent’s name, contact address, and address for service; and (b) if a bond is held in respect of the tenancy, notify the chief executive in the approved form of those particulars. (4A) For the purposes of subsection (4)(a), the following must be notified with the agent’s contact address: (a) the agent’s contact mobile telephone number (if any): (b) the agent’s contact email address (if any). (5) An agent appointed under this section has, as against the tenant, all the rights and obligations of the landlord. (6) A landlord who fails to comply with this section— (a) commits an unlawful act; and (b) commits an infringement offence and is liable to a fine or an infringement fee specified in Schedule 1B.
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 16A (6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant has advised that the landlord had been out of New Zealand for more than 21 days and had not appointed an agent.
The landlord confirms Maureen, and her husband were on holiday and out of the country from 3 to 30 June 2015. Maureen claims that the tenants were advised that their son Sanjeev and a family friend were their agents for the landlord during the time they were overseas.
Sanjeev was staying at his parent’s home at the time and was only 20 metres away from the tenant’s property.
The tenants were adamant that they were not told who they should contact if there was a problem while the landlords were overseas and were never provided any phone numbers or contact details for any agent.
The landlord has been unable to provide evidence that the tenants were properly advised of who the agent was and how they can contact these person/persons. I accept that it was a while ago and that the management of the property was in the hand of Maureen’s husband and not her, at the time of the holiday.
I have to consider the evidence of both tenant who are adamant that they did not have this information.
I do find that the landlord had not appointed an agent, and 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 that 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.
It is in the interests of the parties that they have an agent appointed when the landlord is overseas for over 21 days. The tenants must have a point of contact in case of emergencies and problems with the property. More than 21 days is a long time to wait for assistance from a landlord if there are urgent repairs required to the property.
It is clear that there were people available and willing to be an agent if required, such as Sanjeev, who was temporarily reside in his parents’ home.
I cannot be satisfied that the landlord did appoint an agent while they were overseas and that they fulfilled the requirement of notice to the tenants. I find the tenants have proven their claim.
I am awarding the tenants $500.00 in exemplary damages for the failure of the landlord to appoint an agent while they were overseas for more than 21 days. Filing fee and suppression
As the tenants have been partially successful in their application and they sought suppression of their names and details, I am granting suppression.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4574449 — Exemplary damages at 13A Louvain Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4574449 — Exemplary damages at 13A Louvain Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a failure to provide a Healthy Homes Statement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a failure to provide a Healthy Homes Statement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions