What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4752530 about?

The tribunal order states: 2. must pay Tenant 2 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4752530?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Refund Of The Rent Paid By Tenant 1…: $12,672.00 awarded to tenant; Refund Of The Rent Paid By Tenant 2…: $37,555.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4752530?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4752530?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10782883-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4752530 about?

The tribunal order states: 2. must pay Tenant 2 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4752530?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Refund Of The Rent Paid By Tenant 1…: $12,672.00 awarded to tenant; Refund Of The Rent Paid By Tenant 2…: $37,555.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4752530?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4752530?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10782883-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

76A Wai-Iti Crescent, Woburn, Lower Hutt 5010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4752530 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4752530 — net $53,527.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of the rent paid by Tenant 2 less 30	$37,555.00	Refund of the rent paid by Tenant 2 less 30
Refund of the rent paid by Tenant 1 less 30	$12,672.00	Refund of the rent paid by Tenant 1 less 30
Exemplary damages: bond not lodged x 2	$1,500.00	bond not lodged x 2
Bond refund Tenant 1	$900.00	Bond refund Tenant 1
Bond refund Tenant 2	$360.00	Bond refund Tenant 2
Exemplary damages: - inadequate tenancy agreements	$500.00	- inadequate tenancy agreements
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$53,527.88
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$53,527.88

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4752530 — net $53,527.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of the rent paid by Tenant 2 less 30	$37,555.00	Refund of the rent paid by Tenant 2 less 30
Refund of the rent paid by Tenant 1 less 30	$12,672.00	Refund of the rent paid by Tenant 1 less 30
Exemplary damages: bond not lodged x 2	$1,500.00	bond not lodged x 2
Bond refund Tenant 1	$900.00	Bond refund Tenant 1
Bond refund Tenant 2	$360.00	Bond refund Tenant 2
Exemplary damages: - inadequate tenancy agreements	$500.00	- inadequate tenancy agreements
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$53,527.88
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$53,527.88

Order

must pay Tenant 2 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims by the tenants and by the landlords are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants were represented by Ms Drew from Community Law Wellington and Hutt Valley. The Tribunal had the assistance of two interpreters. Case conference
We had a case conference in March 2024 and I made an order that the Tribunal has jurisdiction. That order was not published because the matter was adjourned. The relevant parts of my order made on 24 March 2024 are here: Reasons:
Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants were represented by their lawyer Ms Drew. I amended the applications because both owners have acted as landlord.
An interpreter of the Cantonese language assisted the Tribunal. We had asked for a Mandarin interpreter as well – for the tenants - but one was not provided on the day. We proceeded because the tenants have a lawyer. I have requested two interpreters for the next hearing.
Two tenants who lived in the house have filed almost identical applications against the landlord. It was not clear from the documents filed if the Tenancy Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the applications. I decided that the two applications should be heard together for the hearing to decide jurisdiction. I am now satisfied the substantive hearings should be heard together.
There was a preliminary issue whether the Tribunal can hear the claims. Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Section 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. Residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful. Tenancy in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent.
Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Section 10 RTA provides that, where a party to proceedings contends that the Act does not apply, they must establish the facts supporting their contention. In other words, they have the burden of proving the Act does not apply. The landlord has not made any submissions that the living arrangements were excluded from the RTA.
I find the Tribunal has jurisdiction. The landlord did not live at the house when the tenants lived there. A bond was paid. The tenants paid rent and had the exclusive use of sleeping rooms. Whether or not the tenants had separate premises is disputed, but I find the exclusive use of a sleeping area and the nonexclusive use of the other areas in the house is sufficient to establish a residential tenancy.
I have confirmed with the tenants that the claim is as set out in the application forms and in the documents filed and served on the landlord before the hearing dated 26 March 2024. No further claims will be added.
The landlord indicated at the hearing that they wished to claim compensation from the tenants for a plumber’s invoice. I have advised them to speak with Tenancy Services about filing a cross application. This must be done by 2 March 2024 if the claims are to be heard together.
I have made orders that the landlord provide specific information from the Hutt City Council. The landlord should understand that if they fail to provide the information required then I can draw conclusions from their failure. Current hearing
The tenants lived at the same tenancy premises. Tenant 1 lived there from 15 April 2018 to 8 January 2023. Tenant 2 lived there with her two daughters from 18 October 2020 until 8 January 2023. The tenancy premises is a residential house. The tenants each rented a part of the house and there were other tenants living in the house as well. The tenants state they each lived in a converted part of the house with a rudimentary lounge, kitchenette, bathroom and bedrooms. The landlords denied that they converted parts of the house into separate “suites”. The tenants have claimed refund of the rent paid during the tenancy, compensation and exemplary damages. The landlords have claimed for a plumbing invoice. The questions I have to decide are: • Did the tenants live in converted suites? • Were these suites unlawful premises? • Should the rent be refunded to the tenants? • Was there a breach of the duty to lodge the bond? • Did the landlords provide the required information in the tenancy agreements? • Was the rent increase done in accordance with the RTA? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment? • Did the landlords end the tenancies without grounds? • Should the tenants get compensation for their moving costs? • Should I make orders restraining the landlords?

Did the tenants live in converted suites?

The tenants said they lived in separate suites, one in a converted garage and one in an extension at the side of the house. The landlords said both tenants lived in rooms inside the main house and shared kitchen and bathroom facilities with other tenants. The landlords did not agree they had converted the house into suites. Between the case conference and the hearing Mr Duffin, the Senior RMA Monitoring and Enforcement Officer Environmental Consents from the Hutt City Council, inspected the tenancy premises. He reported by email to Ms Drew that the house was a single dwelling when he went there. The landlord also provided me with a Healthy Homes report done in 2024, and the house was a single dwelling when that report was completed.
The tenants both provided evidence that they were living in converted suites. Tenant 2 had photos taken during the tenancy showing the bedrooms, lounge, kitchenette and bathroom. She had a short video showing her coming home and being greeted by her dog. She provided me with a WeChat message dated 14 August with a photo of the kitchenette and a discussion with the landlords about repairs. Tenant 1 provided me with photos taken during the tenancy. She also had a short video taken at the end of the tenancy which she took to prove the suite was clean and tidy.
The landlords said the photos and videos were not of the tenancy premises. They said the tenants were fabricating their evidence. They said the WeChat message showed a photo of the old kitchen in the main house. They also provided me with photos of the new kitchen they said was installed after the tenants moved out. Another tenant called [Tenant 3] wrote a statement saying he lived in the main house with Tenant 1 and Tenant 2.
Neither video provided by the tenants shows the suites were part of the main house. The kitchenette shown in the WeChat photo has a hob, a rangehood, a sink and a small bench, with storage in open shelving under the bench. The materials used include bare wood. The main house was built in the early 1970s. Kitchens from that era were considerably larger and looked nothing like the kitchenette in the photo. The photos of the new kitchen in the house show a large kitchen in a large room. The landlords’ evidence on this point is not credible.
The kitchenette on WeChat does look like the kitchenette in Tenant 2’s photos of her suite. I am more persuaded by the tenants’ evidence. It seems most likely to me the tenants lived in converted suites and that the photos and videos were genuine.

Were these suites unlawful premises?

Tenant 1 originally lived in a room in the main house. She moved to the one bedroom suite because she felt unsafe living in the main house. She first paid the increased rent of $220 on 1 June 2021 and it seems most likely to me she moved on 1 June 2021. She is claiming a refund of all the rent paid until 28 December 2022.
Tenant 2 and her daughters moved into a two bedroom suite on 18 October 2022. She is also claiming the refund of the rent until 28 December 2022.
The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises. 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 77(2)(ac) and 78A(2) RTA.
The Tribunal may order the return of all rent paid by the tenant. 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.
The law relating to unlawful premises has been comprehensively considered in None v Anemax Property Management Limited [2021] NZTT Manukau 4296181, 4295174, a decision of the Tenancy Tribunal. I accept this decision is the correct application of the law and I have used much of the decision here.
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. Section 45(1)(c) RTA states that the landlord shall comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
Section 45(1)(c) RTA requires consideration of whether the landlord has complied with the provisions of the Building Act 2004. Section 115 provides that an owner of a building must not change the use of the building. In the case where the change involves the incorporation in the building of one or more household units where the household units did not exist before, an owner can only change the use if the local Council gives the owner written notice that it is satisfied the new use will comply with the building code. Compliance includes the means of escape from fire, protection of other property, sanitary facilities, structural performance, and fire-rating performance.
In the present case the premises can be occupied as a single house for residential purposes because there is Council consent for that. Mr Duffin from the Hutt City Council confirmed that there was no consent for the house to be converted into separate suites, each with a bathroom and kitchen area. Mr Duffin answered these questions for the Tribunal: • Is the house at 76A Wai-Iti Crescent, Woburn, Lower Hutt 5010 rated as a single house? Yes • Can the house at 76A Wai-Iti Crescent, Woburn, Lower Hutt 5010 be used to house tenants who are not family in separate dwellings? No separate dwellings. • Does the landlord have consent to convert the existing garage at 76A Wai-Iti Crescent, Woburn, Lower Hutt 5010 into a dwelling with a kitchen, a bathroom and a sleeping area? No • How many bathrooms have been properly consented for 76A Wai-Iti Crescent, Woburn, Lower Hutt 5010? Two. • How many kitchens have been properly consented for 76A Wai-Iti Crescent, Woburn, Lower Hutt 5010? One
I find the suites were unlawful residential premises because the Council was not aware the house had been converted into two additional suites and rented out.
The landlords only claim was a plumber’s invoice for $474 for clearing the drains. My finding that the suites were unlawful means I cannot make an order that the tenants pay compensation because of section 78A(3) RTA. I find it would be unjust of me to make an order against the tenants because it seems most likely to me the problems arose from unconsented plumbing rather than from sanitary products blocking the drains. The landlords’ claim is dismissed.

Should the rent be refunded to the tenants?

The lawyer for the tenants submitted that 100% of the rent paid should be refunded to the tenants. The Tribunal may order the return of all rent paid by the tenants if there is a finding the tenancy premises was unlawful premises. The Tribunal may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so. See sections 78A(3)(a), (4) and (5) RTA.
Section 78A of the RTA was introduced in 2017 in response to two High Court decisions relating to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to determine applications relating to unlawful residential premises. At the time of the introduction of the Bill the then Minister for Building and Constructions, the Hon Nick Smith, made reference to what he described as the “abhorrent” practice of renting out unconsented, noncompliant and unsafe properties to tenants. He noted that there should be capacity to hold landlords who rent unlawful properties to account, and to ensure that those people who attempt to rent out such properties are held accountable.
In None v Anemax Property Management Limited the Adjudicator considered that the public policy behind the introduction of section 78A is to hold landlords to account for choosing to expose tenants to the health and safety risks of renting out unconsented or non-compliant properties, to disincentivise the practice, and to ensure that landlords don’t profit from the practice.
The Adjudicator also said that allowing the Tribunal the discretion to reduce the amount awarded to tenants under section 78A showed that Parliament intended there to be a distinction be drawn 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. The Adjudicator decided that the amount of rent to be refunded should be reduced by around 30% to take into account the fact that the premises was consented for residential purposes and was insulated in accordance with the requirement of the Act. The tenant had also had the benefit of some utility from the occupation of the premises for a number of years.
As a starting point here I find the rent paid for the two suites should be refunded to the tenants. The house was consented as a single dwelling. It seems unlikely the suites have the proper fire rating and fire protection. There was no building consent and code of compliance for the bathrooms and the kitchens. Both tenants had problems with the drains. It is possible there are other health and safety issues that I am unaware of.
I find that I should deduct an amount to take into account the special circumstances of this case. The tenants had some benefit living in the suites. The location was convenient for schools and work. The rent was not too high. One tenant had a dog. They both lived there for a number of years, so there must have been more good features than bad. They had the benefit of shelter and somewhere to store their belongings. I find that a 30% reduction in the refund of rent is appropriate. This finding means I have calculated all the rent paid during the tenancy for Tenant 2 and allowed a 70% refund. I have calculated the rent paid by Tenant 1 after she moved into the unconsented suite and allowed a 70% refund.
Both tenants had maintenance issues during the tenancy and have made a claim for compensation and exemplary damages. Section 45 RTA requires landlords to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The toilets blocked often. The showers did not drain properly. One of the tenants was without flooring for eight months after a burst pipe under the floor and it was very cold. The other suite had a roof leak where the unconsented addition was joined to the main house. It seems most likely to me these maintenance issues are the result of living in an unconsented dwelling where the landlords completed most of the building and plumbing work. The remedy provided for this is the refund of the rent. The claim for compensation and exemplary damages for breach of the duty to maintain and repair are dismissed.

Was there a breach of the duty to lodge the bond?

It is agreed evidence the landlords did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. 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(1), (2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I find the landlords 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) RTA.
The landlords submitted that they did not know the rule of law, but this is not credible evidence. In Pan v Lei, an order made against one of the landlords in 2020, the Adjudicator notes that failing to lodge the bond is an unlawful act. I find the landlords acted intentionally. The effect on the tenants was stress and financial hardship. They still don’t have their bonds back. It is in tenants’ interests that landlords lodge the bond with an independent third party. There is public interest that landlords are penalised when they ignore the RTA. I allow exemplary damages in the amount of $750 for each tenant. This is middle of the range because the landlords were warned. See [2020] NZTT 4276651,4278772.

Did the landlords provide the required information in the tenancy agreements?

Under section 13A RTA landlords must include certain information in the tenancy agreement. The rules have changed since these tenancies started, but I am satisfied the landlord should have provided the following information in the tenancy agreements: • The correct names of the landlords • A phone number • An address for service for the landlords • An insulation statement • A statement about insurance (Tenant 2) • An intention statement about Healthy Homes compliance (Tenant 2) Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(1F), and Schedule 1A RTA.
I find the landlords committed an unlawful act. The tenants have asked for the maximum exemplary damages for the beaches. The same considerations apply. The landlords said they did not know there was a legal requirement to include this information in the tenancy agreements. I find that choosing not to research the applicable law is an intentional act.
As to effect for the tenants, I find the lack of contact information to be of little relevance during the tenancy because all communication was done face to face or by WeChat messages. I accept there were problems when the applications were filed, but the landlords were served and they attended the hearings. Information about insulation, healthy homes and insurance should be provided before a tenancy starts so tenants can make an informed decision. There was no effect for the tenants because of the lack of insurance information during the tenancy. Finally, the landlords were not required to comply with the Heathy Homes Standards during these tenancies. There is public interest in exemplary damages being ordered when landlords use inadequate tenancy agreements. I allow $250 for each tenant because I am not aware of any similar orders made against the landlords.

Was the rent increase done in accordance with the RTA?

Tenant 2 claimed exemplary damages because the landlord increased the rent too soon. This relates to a text from the landlord which seems to increase the rent with about 10 days notice. However, I am not persuaded this was a breach. Around the same time Tenant 2 and the landlord agreed to a new fixed term tenancy agreement, and the new rent is clearly stated in the agreement accepted by Tenant 2. This claim is dismissed.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenants claim the landlords harassed them. A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenants in their use of the premises. 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(2), (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’ evidence about harassment was vague. The landlords denied using CCTV to monitor the tenants and going to the house to complete personal projects. Calling a meeting for the women about blocking the drains happened once and is not sufficient to establish a pattern of behaviour. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed.

Did the landlords end the tenancies without grounds?

It is agreed evidence the landlords sent messages in WeChat on 29 November 2022 ending both tenancies. They were given eight weeks to move out. The tenants both moved on 8 January 2023. Their claim is that the landlord ended the tenancies without grounds. The landlords said the tenancies were ended so they could move into the house.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so. Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlords did many things wrong when they gave the notice. A notice can only be given to a tenant with a periodic tenancy, and Tenant 2 had just signed a second fixed term tenancy. The minimum period of notice where the owners or family are moving back into the tenancy premises is 63 days, and these tenants only got 56 days after some negotiating. This means the notices given were not valid and would have been declared ineffective if the tenants had applied to the Tribunal at the time.
The claim before me is that the notices were given without grounds. From 11 February 2021, landlords cannot give a 90-day termination notice without a valid reason under s 51(1) or (2) RTA. The relevant time for determining the landlord’s intention is when the notice is given. For the notice to be valid the landlord should genuinely intend to carry out the stated objective. It is not enough that it is a mere possibility or one of a range of options available.
The tenants do not agree the landlords intended to move into the house. This is because the notices were given two weeks after a meeting to discuss sanitary items blocking the toilets. One of the tenants was told she was asked to leave because she used too much power, although I do not have any supporting documentation about this. The tenants are sure the landlords advertised the house again on 17 January 2023 because they saw a WeChat message from the landlord offering a “two bedroom and one living room” for rent in Lower Hutt. I have a copy of that message.
The landlords said the reason was genuine and that the advertisement was for a friend. The landlords were asked to provide proof for the that they had moved into the house within 90 days of the notice period, and for 90 days, which are the requirements of section 51(1)(a) RTA. They brought a bank statement dated May 2023, a power bill dated March 2024, a broadband invoice from February 2024, all sent to the address of the tenancy premises. They said their 20-year-old daughter moved in first in 2023, and then they all moved in over the next months.
I am more persuaded by the landlords’ evidence here. In seems most likely to me they moved in within 90 days of the notice period and they were still living there in 2024. The tenants’ claim is dismissed.

Should the tenants get compensation for their moving costs?

The tenants have claimed the costs of moving at short notice as well as the cost of essential items and furniture. They have provided me with supporting evidence. I am not persuaded I should allow this claim. Tenants never have security of tenure, meaning that there will inevitably be moving costs and purchases for the next tenancy. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed.

Should I make orders restraining the landlords?

I have been asked to make orders restraining the landlords. The Tribunal can make an order restraining the landlords from the further commissions of unlawful acts. Section 109A RTA provides that if the Tribunal makes an order against a person under section 109 on the ground that the person has committed an unlawful act, the Tribunal may, if satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so, make an order restraining the person from committing a further act of the same kind.
The egregious breach here is the unlawful premises. The remedy for that breach is the refund of the rent. There is no provision for me to order exemplary damages which is a requirement under section 109A RTA. Other orders
No orders are made in favour of the landlords. The money they took as bonds must be repaid to the tenants immediately.
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claims I have reimbursed the filing fees.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’ application for suppression is not allowed. There is public interest in the landlords’ names because of the orders made. There is also public interest in the address of the tenancy premises in case the landlords breach the RTA again.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4752530 — Exemplary damages at 76A Wai-Iti Crescent, Woburn, Lower Hutt 5010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4752530 — Exemplary damages at 76A Wai-Iti Crescent, Woburn, Lower Hutt 5010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants live in converted suites?

Were these suites unlawful premises?

Should the rent be refunded to the tenants?

Was there a breach of the duty to lodge the bond?

Did the landlords provide the required information in the tenancy agreements?

Was the rent increase done in accordance with the RTA?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Did the landlords end the tenancies without grounds?

Should the tenants get compensation for their moving costs?

Should I make orders restraining the landlords?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants live in converted suites?

Were these suites unlawful premises?

Should the rent be refunded to the tenants?

Was there a breach of the duty to lodge the bond?

Did the landlords provide the required information in the tenancy agreements?

Was the rent increase done in accordance with the RTA?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Did the landlords end the tenancies without grounds?

Should the tenants get compensation for their moving costs?

Should I make orders restraining the landlords?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions