What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4599069 about?

The tribunal order states: By way of declaration, the premise known as 110 Marine Parade being the front

How much money was awarded in case 4599069?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4599069?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4599069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9324852-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4599069 about?

The tribunal order states: By way of declaration, the premise known as 110 Marine Parade being the front

How much money was awarded in case 4599069?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4599069?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4599069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9324852-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

110 Marine Parade, Otaki Beach, Otaki 5512 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4599069 — Exemplary damages

Order

By way of declaration, the premise known as 110 Marine Parade being the front residential unit of the building, is currently an unlawful residential premise.
Whitby Property Mgmnt Ltd T/A Quinovic Whitby On Behalf Of J Cheung must pay [The tenant/s] $17,049.50 immediately in accordance with the following table:
All other claims are dismissed.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

Reasons

These applications were initially heard on 28 July at which point the parties agreed to terminate the tenancy on 10 September 2023. Quinovic’s application had been to terminate the tenancy pursuant to sections 56A and 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) on the basis that it is an unlawful premise. The original order settles Quinovic’s applications.
[The tenant/s] claims seek compensation and/or exemplary damages for the following alleged breaches of the RTA by Quinovic: i. Section 78A of the RTA as the premise is an unlawful premise; [The tenant/s] seeks all rent paid to be returned. ii. Breach of s45 in failing to maintain the premise with particular regard to the leaks. iii. Using [The tenant/s] electricity to power the neighbour’s internet. iv. Unlawful entry in breach of section 48 of the RTA by the electrician who installed the cabling required for the neighbour’s internet in January 2022. v. Modification of documents with intent to deceive. vi. Breach of s24 of the RTA by failing to give the required notice of a rent increase.
Both parties were provided with time after the hearing to submit further documentary evidence and that has all been taken into account in the forming of this decision, although it may not all be referenced for reasons of brevity.

Is the property an unlawful premise?

In 2018 [The tenant/s] moved into 110 Marine Parade which had already been configured into two joined dwellings. Shortly after, Quinovic, who had just commenced the management of the property, arranged for separate electricity metre boxes to be installed in each premise and then tenants moved into 110A, the adjoining premise. [The tenant/s] raised the concern with Quinovic that the properties may not be lawful on the way they were configured as he is in the building industry and has such knowledge.
As a result, the owner contracted a builder to install a fire wall and Ms Hunt, for Quinovic, says the owner was advised by the builder that this made the property lawful to be utilised as two separate dwellings. The owner himself confirmed in writing that the builder had told him that he (the builder) had taken the necessary steps with the Council to ensure the properties were compliant.
This evidence is in contrast to a letter [The tenant/s] has provided ostensibly from the builder which states: We put fireline gib-board on ceiling and wall in garage at 110A Marine Parade, Otaki, but could not complete job as the garage door was in the way. I told them they need to get it moved. They never got back to me, so I could not complete the firelining on wall and ceiling. They got someone else to do it and the plastering.
Ms Hunt says that when considering the lawfulness of the property they also relied on the property notes held by [redated] operated by [redacted]. These details stated that the land use is ‘multi-dwelling’. However, I also note that the same documentation states that it is ‘one property’ and that the owner was the occupier. Ms Hunt says the matter was settled in 2018 on this basis and their understanding was therefore that the property was lawfully subdivided.
[The tenant/s] says he remained suspicious about the situation as he was aware there was a gap in the incomplete fire wall and there was a bedroom over the fire wall. The matter was again raised in May 2023 during discussions with the tenants of 110A regarding the state of the roof which was causing the leak discussed below. The owner in response contracted a building report and Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) report on the property 1 .
The building report 2 identified that the previously installed ‘fire wall’ is not in fact a fire wall but standard plaster board with no visible fire seal indicating there is no fire rating. The builder recommended further work to achieve compliance. Quinovic also contacted the Council to ascertain their view on the legality of the homes and it was confirmed that the property was only consented for use as one residential dwelling, not two.
As soon as they realised it was an unlawful premise Ms Hunt says they tried to get hold of [The tenant/s] to discuss the options, but he would not engage with them. They therefore were compelled to apply to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy on the basis the property was unlawful. 3 Ms Hunt says this was a genuine error as they, and the owner, believed the premise was lawful, and as soon as they realised it was not, they have taken steps to rectify the situation. They have offered [The tenant/s] compensation for the situation, but he has chosen to have the Tribunal decide the matter. Ms Hunt is adamant that Quinovic had no intention to ever rent out an unlawful dwelling. The law 1 By [building inspectors] 12 May 2023 2 By [builders] 15 May 2023 3 Pursuant to s56A of the RTA
The Tribunal may declare a premise to be an unlawful residential premise pursuant to section 77(2)(ac) of the RTA. Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. See section 78A(2) RTA.
It is agreed, and the evidence is clear that the premise known as 110 Marine Parade, Otaki cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes as it has not been built in accordance with the Building Act 2004 4 as one of two joined residential units. It is consented for residential use for one household unit only, however has been operating as two.

Did the landlord cause or contribute to the unlawful occupation?

Section 36 of the RTA states that “The landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes.”
Ms Hunt submits that they did take all reasonable steps but were given incorrect advice by [property data company] and the builder in 2018. She says that the owner, and themselves, have always been genuine in attempting to provide a lawful property. This (mistaken) understanding is substantiated by the owner having two insurance policies; one over each ‘property’ and ensuring both properties had the correct services. Ms Hunt says that as soon as they were aware of this irregularity, they have taken steps to rectify the situation.
I accept that the owner and Quinovic did take steps in 2018 to ascertain the lawfulness of the properties, and genuinely believed they were compliant. However, I am not satisfied they have taken all reasonable steps. A basic search on the Kapiti Council website makes it clear there is no 110A Marine Parade. To undertake such a rudimentary search when the issue was live is a reasonable expectation. Further, the owner was aware he was only paying one set of rates for the property which must have, or should have, alerted him to the situation.
To rely on [redacted], a digital property marketplace, over Council information is not best practice. I am also concerned about the veracity of the owner’s alleged advice from the builder who now appears to have written a letter confirming the opposite which has been filed by [The tenant/s]. 5 No contradicting evidence was provided by Quinovic to the letter and given it accords with the actual situation, I 4 In particular, sections 40, 114 and 115 of the Building Act. These sections refer to separate household units having separate consents for their use, and states that any change in use must be notified to the relevant Council. 5 See paragraph 6 above place greater weight on this letter than I do on the one from the owner regarding what he was apparently told.
Further, I expect that the issue arose at other times as well. For instance, a code of compliance was required but not obtained for the electrical subdivision of the properties in 2018. It is unclear how the meters got installed without the application going to Council as the issue of compliance for both properties would have been raised through that process.
Also, as discussed below, [communications company] only installed one fibre connection and their reasoning should have also raised concern. An email from the electrician who installed the cable for 110A’s electricity (discussed below) states as follows: “the key 6 was given to me by Quinovic and I even stated to them that 110a was not a separate dwelling and that [communications company] would only put in another ONT if it was a separate dwelling. I was told to attach it to the modem/ONT 7 in 110 Marine Parade (main house) and run the cable round the exterior of the property.
Effectively the issue had been raised on a variety of occasions, and I am not satisfied it was adequately investigated until this year.
Therefore, in summary, I find that whilst steps were taken, the owner and Quinovic were negligent in failing to take all reasonable steps to establish the lawfulness of the property. [The tenant/s] says they were intentionally trying to deceive him. I do not accept this submission as there is no evidence to substantiate it. I am satisfied that the failure occurred through negligence rather than a malicious attempt to evade the law.
Where the Tribunal declares the residential premises to be unlawful, it may order the return of all rent paid by the tenant, although it may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so. The Tribunal may also make a work order requiring the landlord to remove any impediment to lawful occupation or to comply with any building, health or safety requirements. The Tribunal may make any of these orders on its own initiative, even if the tenant has not applied for a particular order. See sections 78A(3)(a), (4) and (5) RTA.
I make no work orders as the tenancy is to end and the landlord has already commenced arranging remedial work on the property. I therefore only consider [The tenant/s] claim for his rent to be returned to him. 6 Unclear for which property 7 Optical network terminal: commonly referred to as a “fiber box”. The ONT allows the fibre optic cable to be connected from inside the home, out through your property and to the fibre network at the street. Then, it ultimately connects back to the internet service provider, allowing connection to the internet. Essentially it serves as the middleman between the fibre network and the home broadband service.

What is the appropriate remedy?

Having found that 110 was an unlawful residential premise pursuant to s 78A(4), I need to consider whether to order Quinovic to repay [The tenant/s] all the rent he paid, or a part of the rent paid on the basis that there are special circumstances which would warrant such a finding.
[The tenant/s] says that the unlawfulness of the property has affected him in the following ways: a. He considers that Quinovic have been intentionally deceitful in providing him with an unlawful property which he thinks they have been aware of the entire time. b. He says he has had to live in a sub-standard and dangerous home for all these years which has affected his health and well-being. c. The Council has only ever provided one set of rubbish bins for both houses, so [The tenant/s] has given 110A what were his bins, and he takes his rubbish to work. d. Had the property suffered a fire it would likely not have been insured due to there not being a fire wall. e. He has had to share his internet with 110A. f. He feels neglected and mistreated as a tenant and says that concerns he raised went ignored. g. He now has to find alternative accommodation.
Ms Hunt makes the submission that the oversight was unintentional and a genuine error which occurred despite efforts taken to ensure it did not.
The case of None v Khan [2022] NZTT 4344467 is helpful as it summaries the factors relevant to awarding compensation in such circumstances. I refer to each as follows, relating it to this situation: a. The landlord’s motivation for renting the property, and their conduct during the tenancy. [The tenant/s] says Quinovic have been deceptive, ignorant of maintenance obligations and were just trying to get as much money from the property as possible. Ms Hunt says they have been responsive to issues raised and did their best to be attentive landlords throughout. She says, and I accept, they did not intend to rent out an unlawful premise. [The tenant/s] also says that Quinovic were fraudulent because when they installed the two electricity metre boxes back in 2018 they must have advised the Council they were taking steps to legalise the two dwellings. Ms Hunt says they arranged to have two metre boxes installed on the basis their advice from the builder was that the properties were lawful. I accept the evidence that this situation has not been created intentionally, but in genuine, albeit negligent, error. I do not find it established in evidence that Quinovic have ignored [The tenant/s] requests for maintenance although it does appear the tenancy was run rather casually at times. This is discussed further below. b. The tenant’s motivation for renting the property and bringing the claim, and the length of time he lived in the property. [The tenant/s] has resided in the home for over five years ostensibly happily whilst always being aware it may not be a consented subdivision. He has suffered some maintenance issues described below with respect to the leaks, but these do not arise from the regulatory failure. His motivation however in bringing this application appears to be related to Quinovic’s attempt to end the tenancy. He says he has been aware it has been an unlawful premise since 2018 and yet he only brought the claim as a cross application to Quinovic’s application when the tenancy was ending. c. The benefits the landlord received in renting the property. Rent has been paid for both properties since 2018 and little maintenance has been undertaken during this time. d. The benefits the tenant received in renting the property. [The tenant/s] has had the benefit of occupation over this period. He did not engage with Quinovic when they raised the building report with him indicating that he was not of the mind at that stage to want to end the tenancy. He accepted their advice to him in 2018 that the properties were lawful as he took no further steps at the time. e. The seriousness of the regulatory breaches making the premises unlawful. Adherence to the Building Codes is important as those codes set out minimum standards such as fire prevention and smoke alarms, insulation, ventilation, structural strength and integrity, escape routes for fire and sanitation. The fire wall is not complete which is of serious concern should a fire have broken out in either premise. Other results of the breaches involve both homes having to share services. Whether the electrical subdivision is compliant remains to be seen. The regulatory breaches are serious. f. Any other breaches by the landlord. There were others as discussed elsewhere in this decision. g. Any detriment or loss the tenant suffered. As discussed above. h. The purpose of s 78A in ensuring landlords do not unfairly profit from unlawful premises. This section was specifically included by Parliament in an effort to address the practice of unscrupulous landlords exploiting the vulnerabilities of those in need of housing by providing them with sub- standard housing. I do not consider Quinovic or the owner specifically in this category however they have been negligent in abiding by their legal responsibilities which cannot be condoned, especially by a property management company. Their negligence has also resulted in the two properties being rented out in an incompliant and potentially dangerous way. In another Tribunal decision 8 The adjudicator noted that the public policy behind the introduction of section 78A is: a. To hold landlords to account for choosing to expose tenants to the health and safety risks of renting out unconsented or non- compliant properties; b. To disincentivise the practice; and c. To ensure landlords don’t profit from the practice. She observed that by allowing the Tribunal discretion to reduce the amount awarded to tenants under s78A, Parliament intended there to be a distinction between premises that were unlawful on the basis of some type of regulatory technicality, but which were otherwise safe, healthy homes, and those properties which created risks to health and safety. I consider this situation to be in the former category. i. The public interest in discouraging unlawful tenancies. There is a significant public interest in discouraging the practice of landlords not properly checking to see whether their premises are lawful before they rent them out. In particular, where premises are rented to vulnerable people, unlikely to complain, there is an even greater public interest in discouraging landlords from renting such premises. j. Any other compensation or exemplary damages that are ordered. Exemplary damages have been awarded of $200 for a breach of section 45 as discussed below.
[The tenant/s] has paid $112,330 9 in rent over this tenancy. Taking into account all of the above, I consider it appropriate to direct that $16,849.50, being 15% of the rent paid, be reimbursed to [The tenant/s]. The factors I have given most weight to are: i. the longevity of [The tenant/s] satisfactory residence whilst being aware of the irregularity; ii. the fact that steps were taken to rectify the issue when raised in 2018; 8 Kumar v Anemax Property Management Limited [2021] NZTT Manukau 4296181, 4295174 9 To 16/8/23 iii. but likewise, that those steps were clearly incomplete; iv. the appropriate action that was taken this year when the situation was revealed; and v. that it was otherwise a healthy home.

Has the landlord raised the rent without giving the required notice?

Section 24 of the RTA requires landlords to provide at least 60 days’ notice of a rental increase. [The tenant/s] is of the view that his rental increase in 2021 did not comply with section 24.
In June 2023 he asked Quinovic for a copy of the notice they allegedly sent him giving notice of his rental increase in 2021. They are sure they did serve him the required notice however could not find it on their records. Because they could not find it, they credited him $2,870 being the amount he paid in increased rent for the period 23 December 2021 and 19 July 2023.
Section 24 does not specify that the failure to give the required notice is an unlawful act. Accordingly, an award of exemplary damages is not available for such a breach. [The tenant/s] seeks compensation for this breach however I consider that he has been adequately compensated with Quinovic’s reimbursement of his rental increase.
Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.

Has the landlord breached their maintenance obligations?

[The tenant/s] claims that Quinovic has breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA by failing to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and/or failing to comply with all relevant enactments. In particular the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 specify the minimum standards of fitness for houses which include a requirement that every house be free from dampness (regulation 15). There are also obligations in the Building Act 2004 that a building is insanitary if it has insufficient or defective provisions against moisture penetration as to cause dampness in a building (section 123).
Breaching either 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 RTA.
[The tenant/s] says Quinovic have undertaken no maintenance whatsoever during his tenancy except for replacing the hot water cylinder when it failed. He says there were leaks in the kitchen roof, through a light in the hallway, the windows leaked, and there is damp around the hot water cylinder.
The HHS reports and the building report establish significant leaks in the property from the roof, windows and either the hot water cylinder or the shower. The builder noted the roof is made of a failed building product 10 and stated that the overall condition of the property is below average.
[The tenant/s] says he has not been able to use his kitchen safely or his back room properly when the leaks were occurring. He says he got electric shocks from the power points that were affected. He says he ended up fixing the leaks in the roof himself. He sent Quinovic a bill for $400 but they have not paid that. He also says that when he started raising the leak issue at inspections in 2022 the property manager stopped providing him with a copy of his inspection reports after the inspections as had been their previous policy.
Ms Hunt confirms that 18 work orders were sent during [The tenant/s] tenancy and agrees he did raise the issue of the leaks in November 2022 to which they initially had a plumber investigate the issue. He was not able to repair it, so they have had roofers quote, and arrangements have now been made to replace the roof in August/September 2023.
The photos certainly establish extensive water leaks at various places in the property. Ms Hunt says they were not aware until November however their inspection report in August 2022 does note ‘multiple roof leaks’ as reported by [The tenant/s] as a maintenance issue. The earlier report of May specifically states “no leaks”.
At this point it is important to reiterate that the onus of proof lies with the person bringing the claim, that is [The tenant/s] here. It is the civil standard of “balance of probabilities “or what is “more likely than not”. I am satisfied on the evidence that Quinovic were aware of leaks in the property from August 2022. I do not find it proven that it was raised earlier.
It was not until November that Quinovic commenced reasonable investigations into the issue and have been working on it ever since. There was therefore some delay in them taking action on the matter.
The landlord’s obligation under section 45 is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. It is a tenant responsibility to alert landlords to leaks as soon as they are identified.
This Tribunal has ruled in previous cases that as a general proposition, a substantial leak is a serious matter and must be repaired promptly. Leaks go to the very essence of a tenant’s right to the use and enjoyment of the premises in 10 Profiled bitumen-impregnated cellulose sheets consideration of the rent that the tenant pays. A leak is not a mere inconvenience; it creates an undesirable and unhealthy living environment. Therefore, the delay in actioning the matter from August to November 2022 was unreasonable. It was not excessive, but it was unreasonable. This is a breach of s45 and an unlawful act.
Compensation for this breach was sought by [The tenant/s] however no proof of actual loss was provided. In particular, I do not find it proven that he suffered any loss of amenity. There is a requirement to provide evidence to justify any amounts claimed as compensation, therefore I make no award.
[The tenant/s] has also sought exemplary damages. 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) RTA. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter when a party commits an unlawful act.
I find it proven that the leaks did affect [The tenant/s] but not to the extent he claims. There is no evidence he could not use particular spaces at times or that the damp was so considerable it created extensive mould. However, they certainly were prominent and did create some deterioration, including in a power plug. There is no evidence as to why Quinovic did not act immediately in August as they did in November, and the response since then has been appropriate and thorough. There is no evidence of Quinovic failing to attend other maintenance issues or deliberately ignoring other notifications. Accordingly, I consider that an award at the lower end of the spectrum of $200 is appropriate here. Has the landlord’s agent entered the premise without providing the required consent?
A landlord (or their agent) 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) RTA. 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 RTA.
[The tenant/s] evidence is that the electrician from [redacted] entered his property without him being previously advised, in January 2022. He says he came home from work and found an internet box and wiring installed inside his home. His evidence is the electrician told him at the time that the property manager Melissa had given him the keys to complete the wiring and that he had set it up but not turned it on as it would run off [The tenant/s] power. He also says the electrician told him he had advised Quinovic that the set up was unlawful. [The tenant/s] recollection is assisted by the electrician’s written evidence noted above at paragraph 18.
This work was necessary because [redacted] only installed one fibre box, presumably because this was only lawfully one dwelling, therefore only entitled to one ONT. The electrician has added on a system that splits this fibre provision so both parties can access it under their own accounts.
The property manager at the time confirms that she provided the keys for 110A only and was not aware the electrician was going to, or did, enter 110. She has provided the key log to support this.
I do not find it established in evidence that the electrician entered [The tenant/s] home with a key provided by Quinovic. I find it more likely than not, having assessed the evidence on the required standard, that [The tenant/s] allowed the electrician into his home. Accordingly, I do not find a breach of s48 established.
Even if I am wrong in this finding, section 109(2)(b) of the RTA states that a landlord or tenant may not apply for exemplary damages more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. The evidence does not indicate that [The tenant/s] brought this issue to the landlord’s attention at the time and as the claim has been filed more than 12 months after the event, exemplary damages would not have been available had a breach been established. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.
[The tenant/s] also views this situation as Quinovic stealing his power to provide internet to their neighbouring tenants which he says they knew of from 2021. As agreed at the earlier hearing Quinovic have paid [The tenant/s] an amount of compensation that has been assessed as equivalent to the electricity it would have taken to power 110A’s internet. I consider this reasonable compensation for the electricity use. I do not find it justified to order compensation over and above that already paid, especially given the evidence does not establish that [The tenant/s] has previously raised the issue.
Also related to this claim is a concern that troubles [The tenant/s] greatly. He says that Quinovic have tampered with the work order document and as such the work order they have provided the Tribunal relating to the installation of the internet at 110A is deceptive and misleading. He points out that the property manager listed on the original work order is a different name to the property manager listed on the freshly printed work order.
Ms Hunt has a clear explanation for this. She explains that when the system prints out work orders, it notes who is the current property manager. The property manager has changed since this event therefore the names will be different from the work order printed out originally, and that printed out for the hearing.
I accept Ms Hunt’s submission and do not find it established that Quinovic have intentionally modified this document so as to deceive the Tribunal. Even if I had found that they had modified the document, the only difference was the property manager’s name, and this makes no material difference to the document. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Has the landlord breached their obligations with respect to the Healthy Homes

Standards?

[The tenant/s] claims that Quinovic has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). In particular [The tenant/s] considers that Quinovic has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. As is relevant here, all private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025.
[The tenant/s] commenced his tenancy on fixed term tenancies. However, in May 2019 he started on a periodic tenancy. Accordingly, this property did not lawfully need to be HHS compliant during this tenancy. This claim is dismissed. Filing fee
As both parties have been partially successful in their applications it is not appropriate to award reimbursement of the filing fee to either party and those costs should lie where they fall. Suppression.
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion if in the public interest. Both parties have sought suppression, however as [The tenant/s] was the only one substantially successful, I only approve his application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4599069 — Exemplary damages at 110 Marine Parade, Otaki Beach, Otaki 5512

Tenancy Tribunal case 4599069 — Exemplary damages at 110 Marine Parade, Otaki Beach, Otaki 5512

Order

Reasons

Is the property an unlawful premise?

Did the landlord cause or contribute to the unlawful occupation?

What is the appropriate remedy?

Has the landlord raised the rent without giving the required notice?

Has the landlord breached their maintenance obligations?

Standards?

Order

Reasons

Is the property an unlawful premise?

Did the landlord cause or contribute to the unlawful occupation?

What is the appropriate remedy?

Has the landlord raised the rent without giving the required notice?

Has the landlord breached their maintenance obligations?

Standards?