What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4648351 about?

The tribunal order states: Tommy's Property Management Limited As Agent For Oshan Jayawarden And

How much money was awarded in case 4648351?

Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4648351?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4648351?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9734288-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4648351 about?

The tribunal order states: Tommy's Property Management Limited As Agent For Oshan Jayawarden And

How much money was awarded in case 4648351?

Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4648351?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4648351?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9734288-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 10, 125 Thorndon Quay, Pipitea, Wellington 6011, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4648351 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4648351 — net $2,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,000.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,020.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4648351 — net $2,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,000.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,020.44

Order

Tommy's Property Management Limited As Agent For Oshan Jayawarden And Florence De Roo must pay [The tenant/s] $2020.44 immediately in accordance with the following table:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

This tenancy commenced as a fixed term for a year from September 2022. At the time of signing the agreement, the building was wrapped for building work. There is disagreement over what information was known at that time about the extent of the work; an issue I discuss below.
Problems commenced in February 2023 when the building work began impacting this apartment. In short, the following occurred: i. The windows and ranch slider in the bedroom were removed and Perspex installed to cover the holes before they were replaced 4 weeks later. The curtains were also broken through this process and did not function adequately for a period. ii. The windows in the lounge area were removed and replaced with Perspex for 13 weeks. iii. The builders were utilising the balcony from early February. iv. The building remained wrapped for the duration of the tenancy. v. The heat pump ceased working in February and was not replaced during the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] left the tenancy early due to these issues. They consider that the tenancy was misrepresented to them and that they were without full amenity for the majority of the tenancy. They seek an unspecified amount of compensation for the inconvenience and difficulties they were put to with respect to this building work.
The questions therefore for the Tribunal are: a. Was the tenancy misrepresented? b. Did the landlord breach their obligations? c. If so, what monetary compensation should be ordered?
I discuss each claim separately below. However, firstly I note that an applicant, being the tenants here, have the burden of proof placed on them to prove their claim to the required standard. This means they cannot just allege something; they must adduce evidence to persuade me that their version of events is the correct one. The standard is the civil standard of the “balance of probabilities” or what is “more likely than not”.
A considerable amount of evidence was filed in this claim. I have not referred to all of it in this decision for brevity reasons, however the parties can be assured it has all be considered in the forming of this decision. I also apologise for the delay in issuing this decision and thank the parties for their patience.
Finally, I note that when I refer to the ‘landlord’ in this decision I am referring to the owners and property management company collectively as that is the ‘landlord’ to the tenants in accordance with section 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

Was the tenancy misrepresented?

[The tenant/s] seek compensation as they say the tenancy was misrepresented to them. They say that the owner and/or Tommy’s had information about the building works occurring at the property which they did not disclose prior, and therefore they entered into the agreement in bad faith.
[The tenant/s] evidence is that at the viewing they asked the Tommy’s letting agent Josh if the building works would affect this apartment and how long the wrap would be in place. He ostensibly 1 told them the wrap would be up for another 3 to 4 months and that the work would not affect their apartment. He gave no explanation of the work. [The tenant/s] says that it was based on this information that they took the tenancy.
The reality for them was quite different. The building wrap was in place for the entire tenancy, they did not have openable bedroom windows/door for 4 weeks or lounge windows for 13 weeks. The heat pump was damaged with the work and as a result they did not have heating from March. They also lived with constant disruption from the building works and uncertainty as to what was happening.
Further, the building wrap limited the light and air flow into the apartment. The scaffolding surrounding the building meant that builders could at unpredictable times see into their apartment. The building work was continuous six days a week, usually commencing at 7.30am for the duration of the tenancy. Most importantly the tenants say, they were never fully aware of timelines for, or the nature of, the work.
[The tenant/s] believes that Ms de Roo the owner had been advised by the Body Corporate that the windows and door in the bedroom and windows in the lounge would be replaced, prior to the tenancy commencing. She submits that it is not plausible that she would not have been provided with that information given the usual functioning of Body Corporates when it comes to renovations.
Ms de Roo agrees that she was aware that the bedroom door would be replaced but not the delays attached to it, nor was she aware that the lounge windows would be replaced. She says she specifically told Josh to tell prospective tenants that the balcony door would be replaced during any tenancy, and the work was 1 He is no longer employed by Tommy’s so his direct evidence is unavailable. expected to take 2 to 3 days. The evidence does not substantiate that Josh did pass this on to [The tenant/s] in response to her questions.
In November Ms de Roo says they were told by the Body Corporate that the work to replace the door would commence which meant the door would be out for one day and the tenants would lose access to the balcony for 2 weeks, but that was the extent of the work. They passed the information on to Cody (the then property manager) who said she already had it and would pass it on to the tenants. The evidence does not substantiate that she ever did that.
Ms Butters for Tommy’s says that their only knowledge of the works at the date they signed the agency agreement 2 was: potential wrapping for 3-6 months starting in a couple of months’ time 3 . She says they had limited information throughout the tenancy about what work was being undertaken despite her constant attempts to obtain the information from the building manager. She is clear they did not know about the windows in either room being removed until they were.
Ms Butters does not even think the Body Corporate was aware of the timeline or extent of the works given how it kept changing, despite it being their contract. She also notes that the Body Corporate company changed during the process which did not assist the communication flow. She describes it as the perfect storm.
Email communication in February substantiates the property manager and owner’s lack of knowledge regarding the lounge windows. The law
A misrepresentation is a false statement of fact made by one contracting party to the other. Silence is not a misrepresentation unless the maker of the statement has a duty in law to speak, i.e., pivotal evidence is withheld.
The law relating to misrepresentation is largely codified in New Zealand in ss35 and 37 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, although the common law still also remains relevant. Essentially, as encapsulated in s35 as far as damages are concerned, if a party to a contract has been induced to enter into it by a misrepresentation, whether innocent or fraudulent, made to them by or on behalf of another party to that contract, they shall be entitled to damages from that other party in the same manner and to the same extent as if the representation were a term of the contract that has been broken. The representation however must be one of fact, not opinion. The representation must be false, and it must relate to a matter of present or past fact, not one which relates to the future. 2 6 August 2022 3 Agency agreement
To summarise; for there to be an actionable misrepresentation the following elements must be present: a. A false representation. b. The misrepresentation must have been made by one party to the other. c. The party who made the misrepresentation must have intended for the other party to rely on it. d. The misrepresentation must induce the party to enter the contract. Discussion
Having assessed the evidence thoroughly to the relevant standard, I make the following findings: a. The tenants had a reasonable expectation that the building wrap would remain in place for a number of months but that it would be down within the first six months of their tenancy. b. The formal agency contract the owners had with Tommy’s was not representative of the actual work that was intended or undertaken. c. The owners were aware of the impending bedroom window/door replacement prior to the tenancy. d. She passed this information on to Tommy’s (Josh) informally who did not disclose this to [The tenant/s] when she specifically asked what work would be affecting the tenancy. e. Josh did also not disclose this information to the other property managers or his manager at Tommy’s. f. Cody the property manager for Tommy’s for the initial part of the tenancy was aware that the bedroom work was impending since November but did not advise the tenants. The owners subsequently did when they realised Cody had not passed the information on. g. No one was made aware of the lounge work by the Body Corporate until it was imminent.
I find it established to the relevant standard that the owners did tell Tommy’s (Josh) verbally in August/September of the intended replacement of the bedroom door; information which did differ to what they disclosed in the agreement in July. By then the building had been wrapped and the recladding work commenced.
Josh was under an obligation to tell [The tenant/s] that the door would be replaced during the tenancy, particularly as she specifically asked. He therefore falsely represented the impact of the building work on the tenancy. Whether this failure was material however is a separate point.
The tenants are clear they would not have taken the tenancy if they knew they would be without windows/door in their bedroom for 4 weeks and without windows in the lounge for 13 weeks. That is understandable. There is however a distinct difference between the information Josh had (that the door would be replaced, and it would take 2 to 3 days) versus the actuality.
Having assessed all the evidence, I am satisfied that neither the owners nor Tommy’s were aware at the beginning of the tenancy that the lounge windows would be replaced during the tenancy, and the time the work would take. Certainly, the architectural plans provided by the Body Corporate only indicate work on the bedroom door/windows, and no work is noted to occur to the glass in the lounge area.
They were however aware work was going to be undertaken on the property, but not the extent of it. It is unclear whether this information would have been obtainable prior to the tenancy.
I am satisfied that Josh’s assurance that the building work would not impact this apartment induced the tenants to enter the tenancy. In summary: a. A false representation was made by Josh as to the impact of the work as had said there would be no impact on the apartment whilst knowing the bedroom windows and door would be removed. b. I do not find the representation he made with respect to the wrap as false as at that stage there is no evidence that either the owners nor Tommy’s knew the wrap would be in place any longer than 4 months. c. The landlord, being a representative of Tommy’s, made the representation of no impact to the applicants being prospective tenants at the time. d. Josh was specifically asked what impact the work would have on the apartment and therefore would have known the applicants would rely on his answer. e. I find on an assessment of the evidence that the misrepresentation did induce the applicants to enter the tenancy. They clearly wanted a long-term tenancy and were mindful of their house cats in choosing the apartment. f. Accordingly, the tenancy was misrepresented to the tenants by the letting agent Josh.
However, I find it more likely than not that had the tenants been told the door would be replaced to an inconvenience of 2 to 3 days, this would not have affected the taking of the tenancy. Therefore, whilst this was a misrepresentation, it was a relatively minimal one. I take this factor into account when assessing compensation which I discuss below.

Did the landlord breach their heating obligations?

Section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The HHS heating standard. requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard was met at the commencement of the tenancy as there was a functioning heat pump. However, in February the tenants noticed it was no longer working and assumed, given it had been knocked by the builders during the works, that they had broken it. They advised the landlord in March who contacted the Body Corporate given they were contracting the builders.
The Body Corporate had the unit assessed and allegedly told the landlord that it wasn’t the builder’s fault and as it was an old unit, the repair would be less cost effective than a replacement. They also said that if it was to be replaced during the works, the Body Corporate would have to organise it and the landlord could not do it themselves. The landlord accordingly instructed the Body Corporate to source and install a replacement, a task they did not fulfil until after the tenancy had ended. As a result, the tenants were without heating until they purchased their own heater in June.
The Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (Regulations) require every living room to be fitted with a fireplace and chimney or other approved form of heating 4 . This landlord responsibility lies alongside a landlord’s responsibility to comply with the HHS. Further, s45(1)(b) of the RTA requires a landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair throughout the tenancy.
I am satisfied here that the landlord did comply with the HHS in the provision of the heat pump and the work undertaken to have it replaced. I am also satisfied that they took the required steps pursuant to section 45 to have the heat pump replaced. Section 45 requires a landlord to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances. What is a reasonable time frame 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. Ms Butters did actively chase up the Body Corporate both for the investigation and the replacement and I accept she was unable to source the replacement herself. 4 Regulation 6
The landlord here did fail to comply with the Regulations as the tenants were without a heating source from March until the end of the tenancy. For this the tenants seek compensation.
However, as a matter of law, a party is not entitled to compensation for losses which, had they taken steps to mitigate, they would not have suffered. When the issue with the heat pump was clarified, the landlord did offer to provide heaters for the tenants. The tenants declined this offer as they did not want to be difficult and when the offer was made, they did not need them. However, as winter developed the need got greater.
In these circumstances I do not consider that compensation is reasonable. The tenants could have taken the landlord’s offer of heater provision up at any time and they chose not to, even when it got very cold. It is disingenuous at this time to seek compensation for a failure the landlords were trying to, and could have, remedied for them. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord breach their ventilation obligations?

The HHS ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. I am satisfied that the property complied with the ventilation standard at the commencement of the tenancy. However, the ventilation was compromised during the building works as the tenants did not have complete openable windows for the majority of the tenancy.
As above, this was not a HHS issue, but a maintenance issue. They were not getting full amenity of the property as they had contracted.
As well as having insufficient ventilation when the Perspex was up in the bedroom, the curtains were not properly installed which meant that their bedroom was very light at night, particularly as the stadium is so close. There was no noise reduction and they were in a busy part of town which impacted their sleep. In this respect I note the property manager’s comments by email to the owner on 21 February stating “the master bedroom is unusable with just a clear core flute wall made, which creates no sound or heat barrier...the contractors have also broken your curtain rail so there are no curtains in the room either”.
I am satisfied that the landlord was doing their best to obtain clarity on the work and mitigate the impact of the works on the tenants. However, the tenants still suffered a compromised tenancy due to lack of adequate ventilation for a number of weeks. I discuss redress below. Was the tenants’ quiet enjoyment breached?
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their peace, comfort and privacy in their use of the premise because of the level of building works they were exposed to which they were not advised of and was excessive. They note the following 5 : a. For the first few months of the tenancy they could not raise a response from their property manager Cody to the extent that they had to contact the owner directly. b. They often heard of the building work that would impact them directly from the trades rather than their landlord, issues they then had to raise with the landlord. c. They had to regularly be home to ensure their cats were not accidentally let loose by the builders. d. They had to regularly be home to provide access for tradespeople, often at short notice. e. They had constant uncertainty about what building work was going to happen and felt they were regularly told things that did not come to fruition. They had to frequently contact their landlord to find out what was going on and were rarely given a straight answer. f. There was one instance when the building manager attempted to access the apartment with a key until [The tenant/s] stopped him. After this they were never sure if anyone would come in without providing notice. g. They were constantly aware of the builders on the scaffolding who could potentially at any time see directly into their apartment. They felt their privacy was severely limited by the constant builders’ presence. h. There was constant builder’s noise from 7.30am, 6 days a week. i. Their light and air flow was limited due to the building wrap around the building. j. The Body Corporate complained about their cats despite them being permitted by the tenancy agreement. k. The builders removed their cat netting without specifically advising when they would do it which damaged it.
They say that the combined impact of all of these factors put an immense strain on their relationship and enjoyment of their home. Ultimately it led to them leaving the fixed term tenancy early. 5 In brief as the specifics are discussed elsewhere in this decision The law
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises pursuant to section 38(2) of the RTA.
Section 38(1) is a broad statement and codifies the common law standard of a right to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption. However, while s38(2) states that the landlord must not cause any interference, the duty is modified by the degree of interference being to the “reasonable peace, comfort or privacy” of the tenant.
It is clear from this section that temporary discomfort or inconvenience does not constitute a basis for breach of the covenant. There are several circumstances, where the landlord’s rights (such as to carry out maintenance or renovations) are inconsistent with the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. In those cases, it is a balancing act to determine the level of intrusion or nuisance that a tenant can reasonably expect to endure. The landlord is entitled to carry out maintenance, but those actions can quickly breach reasonable peace, comfort and privacy if they are not well managed.
The District Court has held in Lucas v Paterson [2005] DCR 76 that where landlords are renovating property, tenants are required to put up with a degree of noise and general nuisance without compensation, with the judge commenting “Were every landlord who embarked on renovations to be in immediate jeopardy of quiet enjoyment breach, we would have an unworkable state of affairs. Proportionality must not be forgotten.” However, there are cases in contrast to Lucas v Paterson in which construction activity on or adjacent to premises has given rise to a breach. In Marino & Ors v Wellington City Council DC, Wellington, CIV-2013-085-660,23 September 2013, it was considered relevant in determining what was reasonable that the tenants had prior knowledge of the work that was going to take place.
In summary, whether the interference complained of breaches the quiet enjoyment covenant is a question of reasonableness having regard to all the circumstances, including prior knowledge of the work being carried out, and the length and degree of intrusion. Discussion and findings
I am satisfied that the extent of the work was unreasonable when compared to what the tenants were told, and accordingly could reasonably expect, would occur.
The evidence creates a picture of communications going round and round with the Body Corporate not communicating clearly with either the owners or Tommy’s, the trades communicating directly, and some dropping of the communication when one party was under the impression the other would be sorting a particular issue. There was also a distinct lack of communication from Tommy’s in the first months of the tenancy.
Having considered all of the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of their home was breached by the renovations. They were told there would be no impact other than the building wrap. This turned out to be completely incorrect as their life was regularly interrupted by the works from February. Irrespective as to who’s particular fault each instance was (the trades, the Body Corporate, the landlord) the landlord is the one responsible to the tenants in this respect. Accordingly, the landlord has breached section 38 and I discuss redress below.

What monetary orders should be made?

I have found the following: a. The extent of the work that was to be undertaken and how it would affect the tenancy was misrepresented to the tenants. b. The landlord was aware that there would be work on the property and that it would impact the tenancy. c. The extent of the work exceeded what the landlord specifically knew at the commencement of the tenancy. d. The tenants had insufficient ventilation for approximately 15 weeks of the 45-week tenancy. e. The tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the property was impinged upon by the building work from February until July 2023. f. The impact of the building work caused the tenants to leave the tenancy earlier than intended.
When assessing compensation, the principle is that, so far as money can do it, the injured party shall be put in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of a tenancy agreement. Sometimes this takes the form of a rent rebate on the basis that full amenity was not achieved (they did not get what they contracted and paid for). Other times it is considered as a holistic amount.
Appellate Courts have advised of the need to adopt a global approach when considering compensation awards. They have repeatedly emphasized that the assessment of the proper amount of compensation is a question of fact in each case; it is not an exact exercise and a common sense approach is required; that there are no general or absolute rules for calculating the amount of compensation but that the primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party.
The Tribunal also has the authority to award damages for stress and inconvenience. It does so on the basis that the law of contract allows such damages where the purpose or one of the purposes of the contract is the peace and comfort of the party and, in the case of a tenant, that is regarded as one of the purposes of a tenancy agreement.
Nevertheless, it is not something that the Tribunal does lightly. The normal rules for damages apply and the tenant must prove breach of an obligation or right, damage, that the damage was foreseeable and that an amount of damages is appropriate. As a starting point the Tribunal adopts the position that a tenancy agreement involves a relationship: relationships are rarely smooth and a tenant must expect some disruption or inconvenience from to time to time. Inevitably there is likely to be disruption when a tenancy approaches its end, even if both parties act entirely lawfully.
Mitigating factors I take into account when assessing compensation are as follows: a. The rent reductions that have already been provided which are as follows: i. The balcony/bedroom works was compensated for with $150/week rent reduction for 4 weeks. ii. The living area glazing also obtained a rent reduction of $150/week for 13 weeks from 14/4/23 until the end of tenancy (18/7/23). This rent reduction continued for a month after the glazing was reinstated. iii. The original rent was $650 per week which the landlord says was reduced from market rent to take into account the renovations. b. The landlord allowed the tenants to leave the fixed term tenancy early having only to provide 15 days’ notice. c. The landlord had offered one week’s free rent ($650) on 9 June given the works that needed doing in the final weeks of their tenancy. This was refused. d. Tommy’s attempted to help the tenants find a new premise.
Ms de Roo argues that the tenants denied access to the trades on various occasions which delayed the work but despite these delays, they kept the rent reductions in place. Given all they had been through, I do not find it established in evidence that the tenants were unreasonable in refusing access when the time period required by section 48 of the RTA was not adhered to on occasion.
The landlord agrees that the conditions were not ideal and says they tried to work with the Body Corporate and builders as closely as possible in an attempt to mitigate the impact on the tenants. They also provided a rent reductions and allowed the tenant to break the fixed term lease without financial penalty when they wished to with a reduced notice period. They are unsure what else they could have done.
The tenants say the rent reductions were not sufficient given the considerable impact of this building work. They had wanted to live in this property for a long term and have had to move before they intended to. Their work and personal life has been impacted and their general enjoyment of their home and life impinged by the invasive nature of the works.
Having considered all of the evidence, I am satisfied that the rent reductions of $150 per week were sufficient to take into account the lack of amenity resulting from the lack of windows/door.
I therefore consider it appropriate to look holistically at the claims for compensation for the breach of quiet enjoyment, misrepresentation and the stress incurred.
Nice Place Property v Ogbourne and Couzens (2017) NZTT 4046775 is a previous case which suggests appropriate bands where making awards for emotional harm damages: “ A. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $1,000.00. B. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00. C. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of $2,000.00 and upwards.”
Adopting that formular, I consider this a situation of band B. The tenants were understandably suffering from worry, stress and anxiety due to the constant work and lack of information about that work. In the circumstances, I consider an award of $2,000 reasonable.
This was a difficult situation for all involved, complicated by the involvement and actions of contractors engaged by the Body Corporate and the Body Corporate themselves. The evidence does not establish specific failings of Tommy’s after Ms Butters and Mr Vaughn got involved. I consider that all involved were trying to do their best in challenging circumstances. Filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Both parties have sought suppression orders. 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. This includes being successful in their application or in their defence to an application. The tenants were successful in their claims, therefore I approve their application for suppression. The landlords were not successful so I cannot approve their claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4648351 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 10, 125 Thorndon Quay, Pipitea, Wellington 6011,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4648351 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 10, 125 Thorndon Quay, Pipitea, Wellington 6011,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was the tenancy misrepresented?

Did the landlord breach their heating obligations?

Did the landlord breach their ventilation obligations?

What monetary orders should be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was the tenancy misrepresented?

Did the landlord breach their heating obligations?

Did the landlord breach their ventilation obligations?

What monetary orders should be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions