What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4872681 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises:

How much money was awarded in case 4872681?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4872681?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4872681?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10589412-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4872681 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises:

How much money was awarded in case 4872681?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4872681?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4872681?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10589412-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

120C Oxford Terrace, Epuni, Lower Hutt 5011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4872681 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

120C Oxford Terrace, Epuni, Lower Hutt 5011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4872681 — State of repair | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4872681. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Order

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises: a. Wash down the rubbish bin area when needed. b. Continue to investigate how any sharp edges of the handrail brackets in the stairway can be smoothed off, and maintain a smooth edge with tape or similar in the interim.
Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay [The tenant/s] $20.44 immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Smith represented the landlord.
[The tenant/s] has applied for work orders and exemplary damages for three areas of concern at his tenancy, being the stair rail, bathroom and rubbish bin area. An oral decision was provided at the hearing, this decision is the written confirmation of those findings. It has been delayed as I was awaiting a written submission from the property manager which I have now received.
[The tenant/s] is currently a recipient of state housing due to recent circumstance and this is his first experience in such housing. He moved into this new build complex in January 2024. The complex is built to high specifications and is one of Kāinga Ora’s most desirable housing developments. Ms Smith advises it has won an award for its design.
On 1 April [The tenant/s] issued Kāinga Ora with a 14-day notice to remedy his areas of concern and when that was not complied with, he filed proceedings with the Tribunal on 26 April.
I discuss each claim below applying the relevant law being the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and civil standard of proof being the balance of probabilities, or what is more likely than not.

Is there an issue with the stair rail?

The stair rail leading up to the second floor where [The tenant/s] resides has metal brackets supporting it. Unfortunately, [The tenant/s] cut his hand on a sharp edge of the rail on one occasion whilst using it. The brackets are on the underside of the rail at regular intervals.
He raised the issue with his housing manager [The tenant’s housing manager]. She came to check it, as did the asset manager and some duct tape was installed over the edge as an interim measure. Ms Smith advises that they themselves could not feel the sharp edge but do accept what [The tenant/s] says about cutting himself. She says they are still investigating what else can be done but it is not practical to take the whole rail off to smooth the edges as suggested by [The tenant/s]. She says no other user has found the edge an issue.
Ms Smith also says that the building has met Council Regulations and is still under warranty however this issue is not covered in the warranty as the hazard has not been verified. She consents to a work order to continue investigating the issue whilst in the meantime ensuring the edge is covered.
Accordingly, I make a work order by consent. 1
[The tenant/s] is concerned that his raising of this health and safety issue was not investigated quickly enough. He says he only saw action when he filed the Tribunal proceedings.
Section 45 of the RTA details the landlord’s obligations to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age, and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. Furthermore, a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings and health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. 1 See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
It is well settled that, 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, and 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. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) of the RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
Section 45 of the RTA does not impose absolute liability on a landlord, and the courts and Tribunal have adopted a “common sense” approach when assessing a landlord’s responsibility for maintenance issues. Bearing on this approach is how any issue affects a tenant but also that the landlord, as owner of the property, is entitled to choose their own tradespeople, provided they are of a professional standard.
I accept Ms Smith’s evidence that the tenancy manager, asset manager and herself have run their hand over the rail and not found it a hazard. I also accept that the building has been recently approved by the Council to meet Regulations and that no other residents have had the same issue.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the rail can safely be used, even if that means using it on the top rather than holding underneath at the bracket at the join locations. I accept that [The tenant/s] did regrettably injure himself but find it more likely than not that this was a one-off unfortunate accident. I have made the work order as that was consented to by Kāinga Ora.
In terms of whether Kāinga Ora investigated the issue quickly enough, [The tenant/s] says he first spoke to his tenancy manager in March and when nothing happened, issued the 14-day notice. When he got no response to that he filed proceedings. He says he filed on the Friday and heard from Kāinga Ora on the Monday which to him indicates that they only took his request seriously when he took the matter to the Tribunal.
Ms Smith submits that the timing was coincidental. She says the tenancy manager would not have been aware of the proceedings at that point as they go to another office.
The property managers’ timeline is that two days after the notice was received, they tried to contact [The tenant/s] but could not get him so left a voice mail. They visited the following day and discussed it with him. The timeline does not indicate that the rail was checked until 17 May as they were focusing on the other issues. The taping was commenced on 17 May and completed on 31 May. The rails were subsequently regularly checked.
It is unclear why it took six weeks for the rails to be checked and then another two weeks for them to be taped.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that Kāinga Ora have investigated the issue and are working on it in a way that is appropriate with the level of concern. They could have checked the rails and taped them up more quickly than they did however. [The tenant/s] had raised a potential issue of resident safety that was not prioritised.
I find that Kāinga Ora should have investigated this issue more promptly which is a breach of section 45 of the RTA. Although this is an unlawful act, I do not consider awards of exemplary damages or compensation justified in the circumstances for the following reasons: a. The relatively minor nature of the issue. b. I accept that Kāinga Ora were likely focussing on other issues with a relative level of priority proportionate to the level of concern expressed by [The tenant/s]. c. The manager did engage with [The tenant/s] on a number of occasions throughout April and May. d. The work order has been consented to although the hazard has not been substantiated. e. The delay was not excessive.

Is there an issue with the location of the rubbish bins?

The communal rubbish bin area for this property is located at the front of the complex. [The tenant/s]’s apartment is on the second floor above the bin area. He says that he cannot open his sliding door for ventilation or use his balcony because of the smell from the bin area. He says this breaches his enjoyment of the property and is a design flaw.
[The tenant/s]’s suggestion is that the area is enclosed with a vent or relocated.
Ms Smith says the issue has been investigated and nothing further can be done other than cleaning the area when needed. She says a Council representative attended the site and confirmed it is in compliance with their Regulations and their advice was that enclosing the area would likely exacerbate the issue. The advice ostensibly given orally by the Council and Asset manager of Kāinga Ora is that if it is enclosed the smell would be worse which would encourage people to use the space improperly. This they say is the best design for the space and there is no where else it could be moved to. An email from the Council confirms it meets Regulations.
Ms Smith says the tenancy manager spoke to other residents, including those closer to the area than [The tenant/s] and they said they could smell it on occasion, but it was not overly offensive. They have told the other residents to double bag their rubbish and not overfill the bins in an effort to mitigate the smell.
Ms Smith says that thus far the bin area remains clean and tidy, and they will monitor that on an ongoing basis. She provided photos which confirm her assessment of the area. Kāinga Ora consent to a work order to clean the bins/area when needed after the bins are emptied on a Wednesday.
I am satisfied that the area of the communal bin area complies with Hutt Council requirements. Accordingly, Kāinga Ora have complied with section 45(1)(c) of the RTA.
I accept that the smell is undesirable for [The tenant/s] however I do not find that the landlord has breached the law in terms of its location. It is approximately six metres away from the front of the building and has a wall around it. I make the work order as it is consented to by Kāinga Ora.
[The tenant/s] also raises the issue of Kāinga Ora not responding in a timely manner on this matter. The timeline indicates the following: a. The property manager met and discussed the issue with [The tenant/s] on 4 April. b. [The tenant/s] was told on 8 April they would keep the bin area clean and ask other tenants to double bag their rubbish. c. A meeting was had with all tenants to explain the concerns over smells and asked to double bag rubbish and keep lids closed on 15 April. d. The property manager met and discussed the issue again with [The tenant/s] on 30 April. e. The bin area was checked on 16 May, 11 June, 12 June, 19 June, 20 June and 27 June.
I am satisfied that Kāinga Ora responded in a timely and appropriate way to this concern raised by [The tenant/s]. Accordingly, this claim must be dismissed.

Does the bathroom comply with the law?

[The tenant/s] has asked for a heated towel rail and hand towel rail in his bathroom. He says that it is unhygienic to not have a heated towel rail or separate rail for his hand towel.
Kāinga Ora’s position is that they will not install the heated towel rail as there is sufficient railing in the bathroom to hang towels. They are prepared to provide a stick-on hand towel rail. They say they cannot instal additional features in only some apartments and if they did for this one, would have to do for all. The apartment is of high specification, and they do not consider such an installation necessary. Given they are administering public monies they are required to be fiscally responsible and installing unnecessary items that require ongoing maintenance is not so responsible.
As discussed above landlords are required by the RTA to maintain their properties to a reasonable standard. What is reasonable is an assessment made by the Tribunal taking into account the circumstances, precedent and the law.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) set minimum standards that all tenanted homes must comply with by certain dates. The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. Heated towel rails are not required under HHS and this home is HHS compliant.
Neither Council Regulations nor the Building Code nor the Building Act 2004 require homes to have such towel rails although they do make specifications on window thickness and insulation levels, among other requirements. Although [The tenant/s] submits that Council Regulations are sub-optimal, that is not for me to comment on.
I understand [The tenant/s]’s particular needs that would make a heated towel rail and separate hand towel rail highly desirable. However, I am not satisfied that a landlord is required to provide such towel rails as part of their obligation to maintain their homes to a reasonable standard. It is a nice to have, not a must have.
[The tenant/s] advised that he understood it was not legally required to have such rails but argues that Kāinga Ora should have a moral obligation to look after their tenants’ particular needs. As discussed, the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction around moral obligations.
Accordingly, I must dismiss this application.

Should the filing fee be reimbursed?

[The tenant/s] seeks his filing fee to be reimbursed because he was successful in obtaining work orders. Ms Smith says she agreed to these at mediation therefore a hearing was not necessary; as such he should not be reimbursed.
Section 102 of the RTA says that [The tenant/s] as applicant may have his filing fee reimbursed if he was wholly or partly successful, and if it is the latter that is at the discretion of the Tribunal. [The tenant/s] has been successful in part, and I do accept that he felt he had to make the application as Kāinga Ora had not responded fully to his 14-day Notice.
Accordingly, as the issues raised in [The tenant/s]’s 14-day notice were not fully remedied or responded to within the time frame provided in the notice, it is appropriate that he be refunded his application fee.

Should suppression orders be made?

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.
[The tenant/s] seeks suppression orders which I consider appropriate in the circumstances. As discussed above he applied to the Tribunal as Kāinga Ora did not respond to his 14-day notice. He has been successful to an extent, and I consider that publication of his name would be disproportionate to his losses given he was raising what he genuinely considered health and safety matters.
Accordingly, I direct that [The tenant/s]’s identifying details be suppressed from the published order. This does mean that the copy of the order received by the parties cannot be published either as it will be unredacted.
Kāinga Ora’s details are not to be redacted as I consider it in the public interest that they be published given they are administering public monies.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4872681. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Order

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises: a. Wash down the rubbish bin area when needed. b. Continue to investigate how any sharp edges of the handrail brackets in the stairway can be smoothed off, and maintain a smooth edge with tape or similar in the interim.
Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay [The tenant/s] $20.44 immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Smith represented the landlord.
[The tenant/s] has applied for work orders and exemplary damages for three areas of concern at his tenancy, being the stair rail, bathroom and rubbish bin area. An oral decision was provided at the hearing, this decision is the written confirmation of those findings. It has been delayed as I was awaiting a written submission from the property manager which I have now received.
[The tenant/s] is currently a recipient of state housing due to recent circumstance and this is his first experience in such housing. He moved into this new build complex in January 2024. The complex is built to high specifications and is one of Kāinga Ora’s most desirable housing developments. Ms Smith advises it has won an award for its design.
On 1 April [The tenant/s] issued Kāinga Ora with a 14-day notice to remedy his areas of concern and when that was not complied with, he filed proceedings with the Tribunal on 26 April.
I discuss each claim below applying the relevant law being the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and civil standard of proof being the balance of probabilities, or what is more likely than not.

Is there an issue with the stair rail?

The stair rail leading up to the second floor where [The tenant/s] resides has metal brackets supporting it. Unfortunately, [The tenant/s] cut his hand on a sharp edge of the rail on one occasion whilst using it. The brackets are on the underside of the rail at regular intervals.
He raised the issue with his housing manager [The tenant’s housing manager]. She came to check it, as did the asset manager and some duct tape was installed over the edge as an interim measure. Ms Smith advises that they themselves could not feel the sharp edge but do accept what [The tenant/s] says about cutting himself. She says they are still investigating what else can be done but it is not practical to take the whole rail off to smooth the edges as suggested by [The tenant/s]. She says no other user has found the edge an issue.
Ms Smith also says that the building has met Council Regulations and is still under warranty however this issue is not covered in the warranty as the hazard has not been verified. She consents to a work order to continue investigating the issue whilst in the meantime ensuring the edge is covered.
Accordingly, I make a work order by consent. 1
[The tenant/s] is concerned that his raising of this health and safety issue was not investigated quickly enough. He says he only saw action when he filed the Tribunal proceedings.
Section 45 of the RTA details the landlord’s obligations to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age, and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. Furthermore, a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings and health and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. 1 See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
It is well settled that, 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, and 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. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) of the RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
Section 45 of the RTA does not impose absolute liability on a landlord, and the courts and Tribunal have adopted a “common sense” approach when assessing a landlord’s responsibility for maintenance issues. Bearing on this approach is how any issue affects a tenant but also that the landlord, as owner of the property, is entitled to choose their own tradespeople, provided they are of a professional standard.
I accept Ms Smith’s evidence that the tenancy manager, asset manager and herself have run their hand over the rail and not found it a hazard. I also accept that the building has been recently approved by the Council to meet Regulations and that no other residents have had the same issue.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the rail can safely be used, even if that means using it on the top rather than holding underneath at the bracket at the join locations. I accept that [The tenant/s] did regrettably injure himself but find it more likely than not that this was a one-off unfortunate accident. I have made the work order as that was consented to by Kāinga Ora.
In terms of whether Kāinga Ora investigated the issue quickly enough, [The tenant/s] says he first spoke to his tenancy manager in March and when nothing happened, issued the 14-day notice. When he got no response to that he filed proceedings. He says he filed on the Friday and heard from Kāinga Ora on the Monday which to him indicates that they only took his request seriously when he took the matter to the Tribunal.
Ms Smith submits that the timing was coincidental. She says the tenancy manager would not have been aware of the proceedings at that point as they go to another office.
The property managers’ timeline is that two days after the notice was received, they tried to contact [The tenant/s] but could not get him so left a voice mail. They visited the following day and discussed it with him. The timeline does not indicate that the rail was checked until 17 May as they were focusing on the other issues. The taping was commenced on 17 May and completed on 31 May. The rails were subsequently regularly checked.
It is unclear why it took six weeks for the rails to be checked and then another two weeks for them to be taped.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that Kāinga Ora have investigated the issue and are working on it in a way that is appropriate with the level of concern. They could have checked the rails and taped them up more quickly than they did however. [The tenant/s] had raised a potential issue of resident safety that was not prioritised.
I find that Kāinga Ora should have investigated this issue more promptly which is a breach of section 45 of the RTA. Although this is an unlawful act, I do not consider awards of exemplary damages or compensation justified in the circumstances for the following reasons: a. The relatively minor nature of the issue. b. I accept that Kāinga Ora were likely focussing on other issues with a relative level of priority proportionate to the level of concern expressed by [The tenant/s]. c. The manager did engage with [The tenant/s] on a number of occasions throughout April and May. d. The work order has been consented to although the hazard has not been substantiated. e. The delay was not excessive.

Is there an issue with the location of the rubbish bins?

The communal rubbish bin area for this property is located at the front of the complex. [The tenant/s]’s apartment is on the second floor above the bin area. He says that he cannot open his sliding door for ventilation or use his balcony because of the smell from the bin area. He says this breaches his enjoyment of the property and is a design flaw.
[The tenant/s]’s suggestion is that the area is enclosed with a vent or relocated.
Ms Smith says the issue has been investigated and nothing further can be done other than cleaning the area when needed. She says a Council representative attended the site and confirmed it is in compliance with their Regulations and their advice was that enclosing the area would likely exacerbate the issue. The advice ostensibly given orally by the Council and Asset manager of Kāinga Ora is that if it is enclosed the smell would be worse which would encourage people to use the space improperly. This they say is the best design for the space and there is no where else it could be moved to. An email from the Council confirms it meets Regulations.
Ms Smith says the tenancy manager spoke to other residents, including those closer to the area than [The tenant/s] and they said they could smell it on occasion, but it was not overly offensive. They have told the other residents to double bag their rubbish and not overfill the bins in an effort to mitigate the smell.
Ms Smith says that thus far the bin area remains clean and tidy, and they will monitor that on an ongoing basis. She provided photos which confirm her assessment of the area. Kāinga Ora consent to a work order to clean the bins/area when needed after the bins are emptied on a Wednesday.
I am satisfied that the area of the communal bin area complies with Hutt Council requirements. Accordingly, Kāinga Ora have complied with section 45(1)(c) of the RTA.
I accept that the smell is undesirable for [The tenant/s] however I do not find that the landlord has breached the law in terms of its location. It is approximately six metres away from the front of the building and has a wall around it. I make the work order as it is consented to by Kāinga Ora.
[The tenant/s] also raises the issue of Kāinga Ora not responding in a timely manner on this matter. The timeline indicates the following: a. The property manager met and discussed the issue with [The tenant/s] on 4 April. b. [The tenant/s] was told on 8 April they would keep the bin area clean and ask other tenants to double bag their rubbish. c. A meeting was had with all tenants to explain the concerns over smells and asked to double bag rubbish and keep lids closed on 15 April. d. The property manager met and discussed the issue again with [The tenant/s] on 30 April. e. The bin area was checked on 16 May, 11 June, 12 June, 19 June, 20 June and 27 June.
I am satisfied that Kāinga Ora responded in a timely and appropriate way to this concern raised by [The tenant/s]. Accordingly, this claim must be dismissed.

Does the bathroom comply with the law?

[The tenant/s] has asked for a heated towel rail and hand towel rail in his bathroom. He says that it is unhygienic to not have a heated towel rail or separate rail for his hand towel.
Kāinga Ora’s position is that they will not install the heated towel rail as there is sufficient railing in the bathroom to hang towels. They are prepared to provide a stick-on hand towel rail. They say they cannot instal additional features in only some apartments and if they did for this one, would have to do for all. The apartment is of high specification, and they do not consider such an installation necessary. Given they are administering public monies they are required to be fiscally responsible and installing unnecessary items that require ongoing maintenance is not so responsible.
As discussed above landlords are required by the RTA to maintain their properties to a reasonable standard. What is reasonable is an assessment made by the Tribunal taking into account the circumstances, precedent and the law.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS) set minimum standards that all tenanted homes must comply with by certain dates. The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. Heated towel rails are not required under HHS and this home is HHS compliant.
Neither Council Regulations nor the Building Code nor the Building Act 2004 require homes to have such towel rails although they do make specifications on window thickness and insulation levels, among other requirements. Although [The tenant/s] submits that Council Regulations are sub-optimal, that is not for me to comment on.
I understand [The tenant/s]’s particular needs that would make a heated towel rail and separate hand towel rail highly desirable. However, I am not satisfied that a landlord is required to provide such towel rails as part of their obligation to maintain their homes to a reasonable standard. It is a nice to have, not a must have.
[The tenant/s] advised that he understood it was not legally required to have such rails but argues that Kāinga Ora should have a moral obligation to look after their tenants’ particular needs. As discussed, the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction around moral obligations.
Accordingly, I must dismiss this application.

Should the filing fee be reimbursed?

[The tenant/s] seeks his filing fee to be reimbursed because he was successful in obtaining work orders. Ms Smith says she agreed to these at mediation therefore a hearing was not necessary; as such he should not be reimbursed.
Section 102 of the RTA says that [The tenant/s] as applicant may have his filing fee reimbursed if he was wholly or partly successful, and if it is the latter that is at the discretion of the Tribunal. [The tenant/s] has been successful in part, and I do accept that he felt he had to make the application as Kāinga Ora had not responded fully to his 14-day Notice.
Accordingly, as the issues raised in [The tenant/s]’s 14-day notice were not fully remedied or responded to within the time frame provided in the notice, it is appropriate that he be refunded his application fee.

Should suppression orders be made?

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.
[The tenant/s] seeks suppression orders which I consider appropriate in the circumstances. As discussed above he applied to the Tribunal as Kāinga Ora did not respond to his 14-day notice. He has been successful to an extent, and I consider that publication of his name would be disproportionate to his losses given he was raising what he genuinely considered health and safety matters.
Accordingly, I direct that [The tenant/s]’s identifying details be suppressed from the published order. This does mean that the copy of the order received by the parties cannot be published either as it will be unredacted.
Kāinga Ora’s details are not to be redacted as I consider it in the public interest that they be published given they are administering public monies.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4872681 — State of repair at 120C Oxford Terrace, Epuni, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4872681 — State of repair at 120C Oxford Terrace, Epuni, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is there an issue with the stair rail?

Is there an issue with the location of the rubbish bins?

Does the bathroom comply with the law?

Should the filing fee be reimbursed?

Should suppression orders be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is there an issue with the stair rail?

Is there an issue with the location of the rubbish bins?

Does the bathroom comply with the law?

Should the filing fee be reimbursed?

Should suppression orders be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions