What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4964721?

The tribunal order states: Joanna Maree Bolton is to pay Mission Property Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4964721?

Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $825.71 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $113.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4964721?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4964721?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11116984-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4964721?

The tribunal order states: Joanna Maree Bolton is to pay Mission Property Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4964721?

Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $825.71 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $113.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4964721?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4964721?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11116984-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

74 Godley Road, Green Bay, Auckland 0604 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4964721 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

74 Godley Road, Green Bay, Auckland 0604 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4964721 — Rent arrears | 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 4964721 — net $1,960.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 20 June 2024	$825.71	Rent arrears to 20 June 2024
Compensation	$500.00	Compensation
Water rates	$113.71	Water rates
Cleaning	$172.50	Cleaning
Carpet cleaning	$115.00	Carpet cleaning
Repairs	$207.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,960.92
Bond	$2,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,960.92

Claims and awards for application 4964721 — net $1,960.92 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 20 June 2024

Amount: $825.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 20 June 2024

Compensation

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Compensation

Water rates

Amount: $113.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Cleaning

Amount: $172.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Carpet cleaning

Amount: $115.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet cleaning

Repairs

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Compensation Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Water Rates

Order

Joanna Maree Bolton is to pay Mission Property Management Limited As Agent for Hui Fen Jing $1,960.92 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 (5948796-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Mission Property Management Limited As Agent for Hui Fen Jing: $1,960.92 Joanna Maree Bolton: $159.08
The landlord’s claim for repairs to the waste disposal unit is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant is seeking refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Is the tenant liable for rent and, if so, to what date?

The landlord says the tenancy was due to terminate on 20 June 2024, but the tenant is liable for rent until 26 June 2024 because she left a significant amount of property at the premises until that date.
The tenant says she is only liable for rent until 12 June 2024 because she made it clear she would be leaving on that date and her flatmate had offered to take over the tenancy. The tenant said that the landlord had agreed to the transfer of the tenancy on 12 June 2024 to her flatmate subject to the to the paperwork being completed but then the landlord changed their mind.
The landlord has provided the following email correspondence: a. On 21 May 2024, the landlord told the tenant that to terminate the tenancy, she would need to provide 28 days’ notice. The tenant advised the landlord that her flatmate would like to take over the tenancy in three weeks’ time. The landlord responded saying the flatmate would need to apply and attaching the link for him to make the application; b. On 23 May 2024, the tenant sent an email saying she was terminating the tenancy. She did not stipulate the period of notice she was providing and reiterated that her flatmate would like to take over in two to three weeks’ time; c. On 24 May 2024, the landlord responded saying the tenancy would expire on 20 June 2024 (28 days from the date notice was given). The landlord said that the tenant would be responsible for the rent to 20 June 2024 and that she had not received yet received the flatmate’s application; d. On 29 May 2024, the landlord sent an email to the tenant saying that his application had been successful subject to the move in costs (rent in advance and the bond) being paid by 12pm on 31 May.
The landlord said that the flatmate did not meet the condition of paying the move in costs by the deadline. Following the deadline, the landlord decided to sell the property and the tenancy was no longer available.
The written evidence does not support the tenant’s assertion that the landlord had agreed that the flatmate would take over the tenancy from 12 June 2024.
The tenancy agreement was for a fixed term of just under 10 months. Section 60(A)(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that: On the expiry of a fixed-term tenancy of more than 90 days, the tenancy continues as a periodic tenancy with the same terms as the terms contained in the expired tenancy so far as those terms are consistent with a periodic tenancy.
The exceptions to subsection 60(A)(1) are set out in subsection 60(A)(2) of the RTA. However, none of the exceptions are relevant.
Once the fixed term continued past the end date, it became a periodic tenancy. Section 51(2B) of the RTA provides that tenants may terminate periodic tenancies by given at least 28 days’ written notice. Section 51(3) provides that the notice must also identify the premises, specify the date the premises will be vacated and be signed by the party giving the notice.
The notice given by the tenant to terminate the tenancy did not comply with section 51(2B) because it was not signed by the tenant and it did not state the date she would vacate the premises.
Section 51(4) of the RTA provides: In a notice to terminate a tenancy, no special form of words shall be required; and no such notice shall be held invalid for any failure to comply strictly with the requirements of subsection (3) so long as the notice is in writing, the intention to terminate the tenancy on a particular date or on the expiry of a particular period is stated clearly in the notice, and that any non-compliance is not such as to mislead or affect unjustly the interests of the recipient.
The notice did not include an intention to terminate on a particular date as required by section 51(4). However, section 85 of the RTA provides that the Tribunal should look to a fair resolution of the dispute, considering substantial merits and justice, not necessarily strict legal rights and technicalities.
Given that the tenant was obliged under the RTA to give 28 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy, the landlord had made it clear that the tenant would need to give 28 days’ notice and stated the termination date would be 20 June 2024 (28 days after the notice) in a reply email, I find the notice was effective, the last date of the tenancy was 20 June 2024 and the tenant was responsible for rent arrears to that date.
The landlord has provided a rent ledger showing the rent due to 20 June 2024. I award rent arrears to 20 June 2024. Should the landlord be awarded compensation for the tenant leaving property at the premises?
The landlord says the tenant is liable for rent until 26 June 2024 because the premises were not fully vacated until that date. The landlord said that the tenant left a significant amount of property outside the premises and has provided photographs supporting this assertion. The tenant acknowledges leaving some property at the premises including a fridge. The tenant said the property was removed on 21 June 2024. However, at the hearing the landlord showed that the photographs of the property on the premises were date stamped 24 June 2024 and maintained that the property was not removed until 26 June 2024.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
I consider it is more likely than not that the tenant’s property was not removed from the premises until 26 June 2024. However, I do not find that the tenant is responsible for rent arrears for the period from 20 June to 26 June 2024. That said, the amount of property left outside the premises was such that the landlord is entitled to some compensation. The landlord had an obligation under section 49 of the RTA to mitigate their losses. The losses could have been mitigated by arranging for the tenant’s property to be collected, any rubbish disposed of and other items stored for the tenant’s collection. I appreciate there would have been a cost to this. However, the tenant would have been liable for this cost.
I award $500 in compensation for the tenant’s failure to vacate the premises on the termination date.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenant does not dispute that she owes $113.71 for water rates. This sum is awarded.

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the RTA provides that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit.
The landlord has claimed $360.00 plus GST for general cleaning and $200 plus GST for cleaning of the carpets. The landlord said that cleaning was required of the kitchen and window frames. The landlord has provided an ingoing inspection report signed by the tenant but without photographs and some photographs from the end of the tenancy. The photographs from the end of the tenancy show that some cleaning was required.
The tenant says that she did clean the property and has provided a letter from one friend and a message from another friend saying that the house was cleaned and detailing the work that had been done. Given that the authors of these documents did not attend the hearing, I place little weight on this evidence.
The tenant says she is concerned that may have been overcharged because the invoice does not include a breakdown. I agree with the tenant that the invoice is lacking in detail: it does not show the hourly rate charged nor does it detail the work performed.
I find that some cleaning was required and award $172.50 (including GST) being three hours at $50.00 plus GST per hour for this claim.
The landlord has provided one photograph showing a stain on the carpet. The ingoing inspection report does not record any stains to the carpet. I am not satisfied that the cleaning of the carpet was for just the one stain. I award $115 (including GST) for this claim.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that a landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provide that tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that where tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. (See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.)
The landlord is claiming $207.00 (including GST) for curtains that needed to be rehung and for putting a wardrobe door back on the metal ledge. The tenant denies that she is responsible for the curtains or the door. The tenant said she took the curtains off to wash them and discovered there was tape where a wire cord should have been. The tenant said this was why she left them on the floor to be rehung. The tenant said the door was faulty and that it kept on falling off during the tenancy. However, there is no evidence that the tenant complained about this during the tenancy.
The tenant has not disproved that the damage to the door and the curtain was careless or intentional. I award $207.00 (including GST) for this claim.
The landlord has also claimed for repairs to the waste disposal unit. The tenant advised that the waste disposal unit has never worked during the tenancy. The inspection report of 20 April 2021 provides that the waste disposal is “not included”. This claim is dismissed.
The landlord has substantially succeeded with their claims. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

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 4964721 — net $1,960.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 20 June 2024	$825.71	Rent arrears to 20 June 2024
Compensation	$500.00	Compensation
Water rates	$113.71	Water rates
Cleaning	$172.50	Cleaning
Carpet cleaning	$115.00	Carpet cleaning
Repairs	$207.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,960.92
Bond	$2,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,960.92

Claims and awards for application 4964721 — net $1,960.92 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 20 June 2024

Amount: $825.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 20 June 2024

Compensation

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Compensation

Water rates

Amount: $113.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Cleaning

Amount: $172.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Carpet cleaning

Amount: $115.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet cleaning

Repairs

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Compensation Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Water Rates

Order

Joanna Maree Bolton is to pay Mission Property Management Limited As Agent for Hui Fen Jing $1,960.92 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 (5948796-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Mission Property Management Limited As Agent for Hui Fen Jing: $1,960.92 Joanna Maree Bolton: $159.08
The landlord’s claim for repairs to the waste disposal unit is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant is seeking refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Is the tenant liable for rent and, if so, to what date?

The landlord says the tenancy was due to terminate on 20 June 2024, but the tenant is liable for rent until 26 June 2024 because she left a significant amount of property at the premises until that date.
The tenant says she is only liable for rent until 12 June 2024 because she made it clear she would be leaving on that date and her flatmate had offered to take over the tenancy. The tenant said that the landlord had agreed to the transfer of the tenancy on 12 June 2024 to her flatmate subject to the to the paperwork being completed but then the landlord changed their mind.
The landlord has provided the following email correspondence: a. On 21 May 2024, the landlord told the tenant that to terminate the tenancy, she would need to provide 28 days’ notice. The tenant advised the landlord that her flatmate would like to take over the tenancy in three weeks’ time. The landlord responded saying the flatmate would need to apply and attaching the link for him to make the application; b. On 23 May 2024, the tenant sent an email saying she was terminating the tenancy. She did not stipulate the period of notice she was providing and reiterated that her flatmate would like to take over in two to three weeks’ time; c. On 24 May 2024, the landlord responded saying the tenancy would expire on 20 June 2024 (28 days from the date notice was given). The landlord said that the tenant would be responsible for the rent to 20 June 2024 and that she had not received yet received the flatmate’s application; d. On 29 May 2024, the landlord sent an email to the tenant saying that his application had been successful subject to the move in costs (rent in advance and the bond) being paid by 12pm on 31 May.
The landlord said that the flatmate did not meet the condition of paying the move in costs by the deadline. Following the deadline, the landlord decided to sell the property and the tenancy was no longer available.
The written evidence does not support the tenant’s assertion that the landlord had agreed that the flatmate would take over the tenancy from 12 June 2024.
The tenancy agreement was for a fixed term of just under 10 months. Section 60(A)(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that: On the expiry of a fixed-term tenancy of more than 90 days, the tenancy continues as a periodic tenancy with the same terms as the terms contained in the expired tenancy so far as those terms are consistent with a periodic tenancy.
The exceptions to subsection 60(A)(1) are set out in subsection 60(A)(2) of the RTA. However, none of the exceptions are relevant.
Once the fixed term continued past the end date, it became a periodic tenancy. Section 51(2B) of the RTA provides that tenants may terminate periodic tenancies by given at least 28 days’ written notice. Section 51(3) provides that the notice must also identify the premises, specify the date the premises will be vacated and be signed by the party giving the notice.
The notice given by the tenant to terminate the tenancy did not comply with section 51(2B) because it was not signed by the tenant and it did not state the date she would vacate the premises.
Section 51(4) of the RTA provides: In a notice to terminate a tenancy, no special form of words shall be required; and no such notice shall be held invalid for any failure to comply strictly with the requirements of subsection (3) so long as the notice is in writing, the intention to terminate the tenancy on a particular date or on the expiry of a particular period is stated clearly in the notice, and that any non-compliance is not such as to mislead or affect unjustly the interests of the recipient.
The notice did not include an intention to terminate on a particular date as required by section 51(4). However, section 85 of the RTA provides that the Tribunal should look to a fair resolution of the dispute, considering substantial merits and justice, not necessarily strict legal rights and technicalities.
Given that the tenant was obliged under the RTA to give 28 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy, the landlord had made it clear that the tenant would need to give 28 days’ notice and stated the termination date would be 20 June 2024 (28 days after the notice) in a reply email, I find the notice was effective, the last date of the tenancy was 20 June 2024 and the tenant was responsible for rent arrears to that date.
The landlord has provided a rent ledger showing the rent due to 20 June 2024. I award rent arrears to 20 June 2024. Should the landlord be awarded compensation for the tenant leaving property at the premises?
The landlord says the tenant is liable for rent until 26 June 2024 because the premises were not fully vacated until that date. The landlord said that the tenant left a significant amount of property outside the premises and has provided photographs supporting this assertion. The tenant acknowledges leaving some property at the premises including a fridge. The tenant said the property was removed on 21 June 2024. However, at the hearing the landlord showed that the photographs of the property on the premises were date stamped 24 June 2024 and maintained that the property was not removed until 26 June 2024.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
I consider it is more likely than not that the tenant’s property was not removed from the premises until 26 June 2024. However, I do not find that the tenant is responsible for rent arrears for the period from 20 June to 26 June 2024. That said, the amount of property left outside the premises was such that the landlord is entitled to some compensation. The landlord had an obligation under section 49 of the RTA to mitigate their losses. The losses could have been mitigated by arranging for the tenant’s property to be collected, any rubbish disposed of and other items stored for the tenant’s collection. I appreciate there would have been a cost to this. However, the tenant would have been liable for this cost.
I award $500 in compensation for the tenant’s failure to vacate the premises on the termination date.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenant does not dispute that she owes $113.71 for water rates. This sum is awarded.

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the RTA provides that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit.
The landlord has claimed $360.00 plus GST for general cleaning and $200 plus GST for cleaning of the carpets. The landlord said that cleaning was required of the kitchen and window frames. The landlord has provided an ingoing inspection report signed by the tenant but without photographs and some photographs from the end of the tenancy. The photographs from the end of the tenancy show that some cleaning was required.
The tenant says that she did clean the property and has provided a letter from one friend and a message from another friend saying that the house was cleaned and detailing the work that had been done. Given that the authors of these documents did not attend the hearing, I place little weight on this evidence.
The tenant says she is concerned that may have been overcharged because the invoice does not include a breakdown. I agree with the tenant that the invoice is lacking in detail: it does not show the hourly rate charged nor does it detail the work performed.
I find that some cleaning was required and award $172.50 (including GST) being three hours at $50.00 plus GST per hour for this claim.
The landlord has provided one photograph showing a stain on the carpet. The ingoing inspection report does not record any stains to the carpet. I am not satisfied that the cleaning of the carpet was for just the one stain. I award $115 (including GST) for this claim.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that a landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provide that tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that where tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. (See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.)
The landlord is claiming $207.00 (including GST) for curtains that needed to be rehung and for putting a wardrobe door back on the metal ledge. The tenant denies that she is responsible for the curtains or the door. The tenant said she took the curtains off to wash them and discovered there was tape where a wire cord should have been. The tenant said this was why she left them on the floor to be rehung. The tenant said the door was faulty and that it kept on falling off during the tenancy. However, there is no evidence that the tenant complained about this during the tenancy.
The tenant has not disproved that the damage to the door and the curtain was careless or intentional. I award $207.00 (including GST) for this claim.
The landlord has also claimed for repairs to the waste disposal unit. The tenant advised that the waste disposal unit has never worked during the tenancy. The inspection report of 20 April 2021 provides that the waste disposal is “not included”. This claim is dismissed.
The landlord has substantially succeeded with their claims. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4964721 — Rent arrears at 74 Godley Road, Green Bay, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4964721 — Rent arrears at 74 Godley Road, Green Bay, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for rent and, if so, to what date?

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for rent and, if so, to what date?

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions