What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5135788 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5135788?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5135788?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5135788?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12058326-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5135788 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5135788?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5135788?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5135788?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12058326-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Te Matawai Tenancy Tribunal Case 5135788 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Background

The Tenant lives at Te Matawai, a Kāinga Ora social housing complex in Central Auckland. Te Matawai is a large complex, with 200 social housing units.

The Tenant has medical conditions that can make her life challenging. Most relevant to this case are her recurrent depression, panic disorder, anxiety, hypoxic brain injury, osteoarthritis and her agoraphobia, which is a fear of being in situations where escape may be difficult or that help would not be available if things went wrong. As the Tenant’s doctor explained in a letter provided to me “Agoraphobia [is] not just a fear of open spaces, but it’s actually a more complex condition.”

This has not been a happy tenancy for either party.

The Tenant alleges that the Landlord has breached its obligations under the tenancy agreement and Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) and has now applied for: (a) a work order requiring the Landlord to provide a cleaner as promised; and (b) compensation for: (i)alleged regular breaches of the Tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises; (ii)failure to adequately maintain the premises, resulting in a cabinet and wall oven becoming detached from a wall; (iii)disabling the swipe card the Tenant used to enter the premises; (iv)alleged failures by the Landlord to take all reasonable steps to ensure its other tenants do not cause or permit interference with the Tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy; and (v)failure to respond to her request that the Landlord install a window skirt in the premises; and (vi)the cost of purchasing noise cancelling earbuds and a mobile phone, which she used to record incidents involving other occupants.

The Landlord has applied to the Tribunal for orders under sections 55A and 56 of the RTA terminating the Tenant’s periodic tenancy on the grounds of repeated anti-social behaviour by the Tenant.

Both parties attended the hearing. Kāinga Ora representatives attended in person. At her request, the Tenant attended the hearing by audio-visual only, with her father as a support person and representative. The issues

To determine this application, I need to consider the following issues: (a) Has the Landlord breached any of its obligations under the RTA or tenancy agreement? (b) If so, what compensation should the Tenant receive? (c) Did the anti-social behaviour notices issued by the Landlord comply with the formal requirements in section 55A of the RTA? (d) Was the behaviour anti-social behaviour? (e) Would it be unfair to terminate the tenancy for anti-social behaviour appropriate?

Given my finding that the Landlord has proven its claim under section 55A of the RTA, I do not need to consider the Landlord’s application under section 56 of the RTA in this decision. Issue 1: Has the Landlord breached any of its obligations? The cleaner

The Tenant alleges that the Landlord agreed to provide a cleaner to clean her unit. She seeks compensation because the Landlord has failed to do so.

The Landlord denies agreeing to provide a cleaner. Other than her testimony, the Tenant has provided no evidence to prove that the Landlord agreed to provide a cleaner and neither the RTA nor the Tenancy Agreement contains to such obligation. I therefore find that the Tenant has not proven this aspect of her claim. Quiet enjoyment

Section 38(1) of the RTA provides that the Tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord. Section 38(2) of the RTA says that the landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.

The Tenant says the Landlord regularly breached her right to quiet enjoyment by visiting and sending tradespeople to the premises without her written consent. She says that she advised the Landlord that all requests for entry must be sent to her by email, that no one was to knock on her door unannounced and that the Landlord and its agents (tradespeople etc) could only come into her unit at a time suitable to her.

The Tenants says that people – including Kāinga Ora staff and tradespeople - frequently knocked on her door without her permission. She also says that, on one occasion, she was “chased” down the street by a plumber who had come to Te Matawai to perform repairs in her unit. She considers that these incidents are an interference with her reasonable peace, comfort and privacy.

The conditions of entry requested by the Tenant are due to her medical conditions – particularly her agoraphobia, panic disorder and anxiety. The Tenant becomes anxious and upset when there is an unexpected knock on the door and prefers to be away from her unit if the Landlord or an agent requires access.

Nonetheless, I am not satisfied that the Landlord has breached any of its obligations under the RTA. The Landlord’s requests for access to enter the premises related to repairs required within the unit and were typically made in writing and sent to the Tenant within the timeframes required by section 48 of the RTA. The Landlord did not then need to get the Tenant’s consent to enter the unit to perform the repairs or other tasks. Once the required notice was given, the Landlord was entitled to enter.

The evidence also shows that the Landlord generally made extra effort to accommodate the Tenant’s needs and to enter at times that best suited the Tenant. Rather than simply rely on its notice to justify entry at a time that was suitable to it, the Landlord often co-operated with the Tenant to attempt to ensure that its entry would not be disruptive. Sometimes that was not possible, but I am not satisfied that the Landlord’s entry into the premises was unlawful or in breach of the Tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy.

Regarding the plumber chasing her down the street, the evidence suggests that the Tenant’s toilet required repair. It seems the plumber had turned up to perform those repairs just as the Tenant was leaving the building and that Kāinga Ora staff told the plumber to catch up with the Tenant to check that it was okay to do the work. The Tenant may have found this upsetting, but I see nothing untoward in the actions of the Landlord or its tradesperson. I was left with the sense that the Landlord was trying to help, rather than harm, the Tenant.

The Tenant also complained about Kāinga Ora staff members and others knocking on her door without notice. For example, she complained that a Kāinga Ora staff member knocked on her door to tell her that her groceries had been delivered. The Tenant says that this breached her quiet enjoyment.

There is no law preventing a landlord from knocking on the door of premises. The Landlord has the same right as any other person to knock on a door. Persistent knocking can, in some circumstances, amount to harassment, but I am not satisfied that the Landlord’s conduct in this case reaches anywhere near that threshold. Indeed, based on the evidence I heard, I am satisfied that the Landlord was only ever trying to assist the Tenant. She may not have felt that way, but that is the impression I have from the evidence.

Finally, the Tenant complained about the Landlord cleaning the exterior of the building without giving her adequate notice. She says that items she left on her balcony got wet and created a mess. I agree with the Landlord that it was not required to give notice of the exterior cleaning, but it did. I accept the Landlord’s evidence that it posted signs in the building advising tenants of the exterior cleaning. Failure to attach the kitchen cabinet

The Landlord failed to securely attach a kitchen cabinet, which contained a wall oven, to the wall. The cabinet came loose, falling towards the Tenant’s mother. The cabinet did not topple completely because the electrical cable connected to the wall oven remained intact.

The Landlord did not dispute that the cabinet came loose from the wall. The Landlord’s representative seemed to suggest that this may have been caused by someone pulling at the cabinet, which the Tenant denies.

Irrespective of whether the Tenant or her mother pulled on the cabinet, it should not have become detached. Kitchen cabinets – particularly those containing a heavy wall oven – must be securely attached and a reasonable landlord should ensure that such items are securely attached to the wall. It is entirely foreseeable that someone could be badly injured (or worse) if such a cabinet was to fall on them. Altering locks

Under section 46 of the RTA, a landlord is prohibited from altering any existing lock or similar devise without the consent of the tenant. The Tenant says the Landlord breached this rule by disabling the swipe card she used to enter the premises. She says that on one occasion, Kāinga Ora staff disabled her swipe card following a disorder incident, and only re-enabled it once she had spoken to Police. She says that on the other occasion, Kāinga Ora disabled the swipe card used by her cleaner. On both occasions, the swipe cards were re-enabled. Kāinga Ora denies disabling the swipe cards.

As the person bring this claim, the Tenant bears the onus of proof. I am not satisfied that she has established that the Landlord altered the swipe cards without her consent. Even if I am wrong on this point, I am not satisfied that there should be any negative consequence for the Landlord because any disabling of the swipe card was for a short period only, with no harm to the Tenant. Failure to take reasonable steps to protect peace, comfort

Kāinga Ora was required to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of its other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the Tenant in the use of the premises. 1

The Tenant says that it did not. She alleges that other tenants have verbally abused and assaulted her on numerous occasions. In support, she has provided three videos and a list on incidents that she has reported to Police.

One of the incidents involved an allegation of assault with a weapon. The Tenant gave evidence about an incident during which a knife was held to her throat by another resident. That tenant has since been charged by the Police and Kāinga Ora agrees that this incident occurred and has successfully applied to the Tribunal to have that tenant’s tenancy at Te Matawai terminated. I heard no evidence to suggest that the Landlord contributed to or caused this incident, and its response was appropriate in the circumstances.

The other alleged incidents appear to involve abusive or inappropriate language and/or allegations of intimidation.

Some of the incidents occurred outside Te Matawai. For example, one of the police reports relates to alleged derogatory comments made by the occupants of a car outside the building. Two of the videos also show short incidents of alleged verbal abuse on the street outside Te Matawai. The Tenant says that it one video she was called a piece of shit, in the other she says that was called a “fat cow”. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 45(1)(e). Those incidents occurred on the street near Te Matawai, but not in the building. I am not satisfied that the Landlord can have responsibility for one off incidents of alleged verbal abuse that happen on the street near its premises.

However, most of the incidents complained of by the Tenant have occurred as she is attempting to enter or leave the premises and involves interaction with other tenants or members of the public. The third video relates to an incident in the hallway near the Tenant’s unit. The Tenant uses a mobile phone attached to her mobility scooter to record incidents. The part of that incident captured by her mobile phone shows another tenant swearing angrily at the Tenant. The video then goes on to show the Tenant attempting to report the incident to Kāinga Ora staff at the front desk on the ground floor. The other tenant then appears, again swearing at the Tenant and claiming that the Tenant was initially abusive towards him when he was simply trying to help her by holding the elevator door open for her. Unfortunately, the start of the incident was not captured on video.

Other incidents have occurred at or near the front door. The Tenant says that she feels intimidated by people congregating near the front door, and that her agoraphobia and other conditions are triggered in such circumstances.

The Tenants complains of other Tenants smoking outside the building, near no smoking signs. She says that those Tenants have been abusive towards her, including when she complained about their smoking. She says that on one occasion, another person called her a “sexy bitch” while she entered the building. On other occasions, the Tenant says she has been abused and sworn at while attempting to enter the elevator or while coming or going from Te Matawai.

Kāinga Ora was informed of the incident with the knife and has taken appropriate action by involving Police and ending that person’s tenancy. Kāinga Ora was also made aware of the incident shown in the third video, and it has since warned the other tenant for his language and behaviour. It says that this tenant has no other disciplinary issues or warnings while living at Te Matawai. In my view, the Landlord’s response to this incident was also appropriate.

The extent to which Kāinga Ora was made aware of the other incidents is unclear, so it is difficult for me to assess whether or not the steps taken by Kāinga Ora to prevent or address those incidents were reasonable. Regarding the Tenant’s point about congregation near the front door, I do not see what further reasonable steps Kāinga Ora can be required to take. 200 people live at Te Matawai and it is almost inevitable that at least some of those tenants will congregate in the common areas and I do not consider that Kāinga Ora could reasonably ban people from congregating lawfully in those areas. Likewise, it could seek to enforce the smoking ban at the front of the building, but that would not necessarily prevent people from congregating there.

Also, having heard all of the evidence, including from Kāinga Ora staff members and the Tenant about her behaviour in general, I consider there to be a real possibility that the Tenant has contributed to at least some of the incidents that she now complains of. Kāinga Ora has produced evidence to show that, on several occasions, the Tenant has provoked conflict with other tenants. I acknowledge that some of the language and conduct that the Tenant has been subjected to is entirely unacceptable. But I am not satisfied that the Tenant has proven that Kāinga Ora has breached its obligations under the RTA by failing to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the other occupants of Te Matawai did not interfere with the Tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy.

As I understand it, the Tenant says that, given her medical conditions and needs, Kāinga Ora had a particular responsibility to her to put in place special arrangements for her to ensure that she can enter and exit the building without provocation or disturbance. If those arrangements had been in place, she says that the multiple incidents that I heard about during the hearing would not have occurred. The Tenant says that she was told at the start of the tenancy that she would be provided with the support she required (including it would seem support in entering and exiting the building) and Kāinga Ora has not provided that support.

Kāinga Ora has no such special obligation to the Tenant, either under the RTA or the tenancy agreement. It is a landlord. It is not a wraparound social services provider. It is required to comply with its obligations under the tenancy agreement and the RTA. It has no obligation to go further, even for Tenants who have complex needs. To me, the real issue here was that this building, with its elevators, crowded common areas and 199 other occupants, was probably unsuitable for someone with the Tenant’s particular needs. But the blame for that cannot rest with Kāinga Ora. If anything, questions could be asked of those who were involved in placing the Tenant in this building as to why it was considered appropriate given her needs. Failure to respond to request for consent to instal a window skirt

Under section 42A(3) of the RTA, where a tenant makes a written request for consent for a fixture, renovation, alteration or addition, the landlord must respond in writing within 21 days. The Tenants says that her unit is hot and she has purchased a portable air conditioning unit. She wants to attach a window skirt to her ranch slider through which the air conditioning unit vent can be plumbed to the outside. She made a written request to Kāinga Ora to instal a window skirt. She says Kāinga Ora did not reply within 21 days.

I am not satisfied that this obligation has been breached because the window skirt is not a fixture, renovation, alteration or addition. The evidence shows that the window skirt attaches with temporary tape and velcro. This is not a permanent attachment, fixture or alteration or addition. Kāinga Ora’s consent was not therefore required.

Even if I am wrong on this point, I am not satisfied that the breach of this obligation is so significant that any compensation or exemplary damages order is required. Compensation for earbuds and mobile phone

The Tenant seeks compensation for earbuds that she says were lost when she was arrested by the Police for threatening to kill a social services worker. She says that she purchased the earbuds to block out the noise and verbal abuse she experienced at Te Matawai.

This claim must fail. The Tenant was arrested by the Police, not Kāinga Ora. There was no evidence to show that Kāinga Ora then found and disposed of her earbuds. I cannot see how Kāinga Ora can therefore be liable.

Likewise, I do not consider that Kāinga Ora should compensate the Tenant for the purchase of a mobile phone. The Tenant says that that she bought the phone to record the incidents of abuse that she claims to have suffered. That was her decision and given my finding that Kāinga Ora has not breached any of its obligations regarding the incidents the Tenant complains of, I am not satisfied that Kāinga Ora should compensate the Tenant for purchasing the phone. Issue 2: What compensation is the Tenant entitled to

I have found that Kāinga Ora has failed to securely attach the kitchen cabinet to the wall. In all of the circumstances, particularly considering the potential harm that could have occurred, I award general damages of $500 to the Tenant. I had considered exemplary damages, but ultimately considered them inappropriate. If I had awarded exemplary damages, the amount would have been the same.

The Tenant is entitled to no other compensation, as she has not proven that the Landlord has breached any other obligation under the tenancy agreement or RTA.

In concluding that Kāinga Ora has not breached no other obligations under the RTA, I pause to comment on a concerning practice adopted by staff at Te Matawai (which I am told has now ceased). It seems that, at least for a period of time, Kāinga Ora used an airhorn on the Tenant to attempt to control incidents of disorder. A staff member would activate the airhorn near the Tenant to try to disrupt her behaviour. I struggle to understand how Kāinga Ora could have considered it appropriate to use an airhorn on any tenant, let alone one with this Tenant’s complex needs.

The use of the airhorn did not form part of the Tenant’s claim that Kāinga Ora breached its obligations, so I make no finding on the lawfulness (or otherwise) of this conduct, but I make this comment in the event that Kāinga Ora ever reconsiders reintroducing this practice. Issue 3: Did the Tenant engage in anti-social behaviour? The law

A landlord can apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating a periodic tenancy on the ground of anti-social behaviour. 2 Anti-social behaviour is: (a) harassment; or (b) any other act or omission (whether intentional or not), if the act or omission reasonably causes alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor. 3

The Tribunal must (subject to section 55A(3) of the RTA) terminate the tenancy if it is satisfied that: (a) On 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the premises; (b) On each occasion the landlord has given the tenant a notice that: (i) Described the specific behaviour, and if known by the landlord, who engaged in it; and (ii) Advised of the date and approximate location it occurred; and (iii) Stated how many notices had been given; and (iv) Advised the tenant of a right to challenge the notice in this Tribunal; and (c) The landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy was made within 28 days of the third notice. 4

Under section 55A(3), the Tribunal must not order termination of a tenancy if it is satisfied that: (a) doing so would be unfair because of the circumstances in which the behaviour occurred or the notices were given; or (b) the Landlord’s actions were retaliatory in response to the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by the RTA or any other Act.

When deciding whether to terminate the tenancy, the Tribunal cannot consider the impact that terminating the tenancy would have on the Tenant. 5 The anti-social behaviour incidents 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 55A(1). 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 55A(7). 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 55A(2). 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 55A(4).

Kāinga Ora issued three anti-social behaviour notices relevant to this claim: (a) The notice dated 21 February 2025. That notice relates to an incident in the foyer of Te Matawai on February 2025, where the Tenant yelled and swore at another tenant. I heard evidence from [Staff member 1] and [Staff member 2], who are both Kāinga Ora employees and both witnessed this incident. They say that the Tenant was disruptive and abusive to another resident, including by shouting at another resident saying, amongst other things, “stop looking at me you dumb bitch, I don’t give a fuck, fuck off and don’t you look at me you dumb cunt”. The Tenant does not dispute that this incident occurred. (b) The notice dated 6 March 2025. That notice related to an incident on 1 March 2025 at approximately 2.24pm. [Staff member 2] was in reception area at the time. [Staff member 2] says that the Tenant got into a verbal altercation with another tenant, which resulted in her telling the other tenant to “fuck off”. [Staff member 2] says that when Kāinga Ora staff attempted to intervene, the Tenant yelled at the staff to “fuck off”. [Staff member 2] says that the Tenants yelling became louder, causing staff to close that area of the ground floor off. Again, the Tenant does not dispute that this incident occurred. (c) The notice dated 27 March 2025. That notice related to an incident in the reception area at Te Matawai on 19 March 2025 at approximately 3.23 pm. [Staff member 2] says the Tenant entered the ground floor corridor on her mobility scooter. [Staff member 2] says that the Tenant shouted at another resident to “get out of my fucking way you fucking cunt”. [Staff member 2] closed the corridor doors to stop other residents entering the area. The Tenant then abused a Kāinga Ora staff member, saying “why did you close the doors your fucking cunt”. The Tenant does not dispute that this incident occurred.

What amounts to anti-social behaviour will depend on the circumstances. Swearing and yelling in some circumstances may not be anti-social. But these were not those circumstances. Each incident occurred in a common area of a large social housing complex in the presence of other residents and staff. The language used by the Tenant was aggressive and coarse and sufficient to reasonably cause alarm, distress or nuisance.

I therefore find that the Tenant has engaged in three instances of anti-social behaviour within a 90-day period, as set out in the notices. Issue 4: Did the anti-social behaviour notices comply with the formal requirements?

The notices each complied with the formal requirements in section 55A(2) of the RTA. The notices described the specific behaviour, advised the Tenant of the date and approximate location of the incidents, stated how many other notices had been given and advised the Tenant of her right to challenge the notices. Kāinga Ora’s application to terminate the Tenancy was then made within 28 days of the date of the third notice. Issue 5: Is termination of the tenancy for anti-social behaviour appropriate?

Under section 55A of the RTA, I must terminate the tenancy where there has been anti-social behaviour on three or more occasions within a 90-day period and the landlord has served a valid anti-social behaviour notice, unless I satisfied that: (a) doing so would be unfair because of the circumstances in which the behaviour occurred or the notices were given; or (b) the Landlord’s actions were retaliatory in response to by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by the RTA or any other Act. 6

Kāinga Ora’s actions were not retaliatory. Likewise, there was nothing about the circumstances in which the conduct occurred or the notices were given that would make it unfair to terminate. In issuing the notices, Kāinga Ora has responded to the Tenant’s anti-social behaviour and provided sufficient information about the behaviour to enable the Tenant to understand the allegations made and to challenge those allegations.

There were also many other instances of general disruption throughout the tenancy that caused concern to the neighbours, so it cannot be said that these three instances of anti-social behaviour were so isolated that it is unfair for Kāinga Ora to seek termination due to that behaviour. I also note that, although the Tenant acknowledges her behaviour, she continues to minimise that behaviour by attributing responsibility to Kāinga Ora’s perceived failures to provide her with the support she feels she needs. As I have noted above, Kāinga Ora had no legal responsibility to provide that special support, so I decline to take into account any failure by it to do so when deciding whether it is unfair to terminate the tenancy.

I acknowledge the impact that termination of the tenancy will have on the Tenant, and finding suitable alternative accommodation may well be difficult for her. However, I cannot take account of the effect on her. Section 55A(4) of the RTA prohibits me from doing so. Instead, if the statutory tests in s 55A of the RTA are met, as they are here, I must terminate the tenancy.

I therefore order that the Tenant’s tenancy at the premises is terminated and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora. 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 55A(3).

In making this order I explicitly note that I am satisfied that the Tenant’s conduct seems to be a result of her response to the environment she is in. As noted above, this building – due to its elevators, common areas and large number of other residents – does not appear to have been suitable due to her underlying conditions. The Tenant seems to have been living in a heightened state of anxiety, which has triggered her anti-social behaviour. Her father says that this behaviour is uncharacteristic, and the Tenant advises that she had no such problems at her previous home. My hope is that, if they have not already done so, the Tenant, her family, Kāinga Ora and social services providers are able to co-operate to find a suitable alternative home for the Tenant, without the stressors present in this building. Name suppression

Given the Tenant’s personal circumstances, I consider that it is in the public interest that her name and all identifying details of the Tenant are suppressed.

Reasons

Background

The Tenant lives at Te Matawai, a Kāinga Ora social housing complex in Central Auckland. Te Matawai is a large complex, with 200 social housing units.

This has not been a happy tenancy for either party.

The Landlord has applied to the Tribunal for orders under sections 55A and 56 of the RTA terminating the Tenant’s periodic tenancy on the grounds of repeated anti-social behaviour by the Tenant.

The Tenant alleges that the Landlord agreed to provide a cleaner to clean her unit. She seeks compensation because the Landlord has failed to do so.

The other alleged incidents appear to involve abusive or inappropriate language and/or allegations of intimidation.

The Tenant is entitled to no other compensation, as she has not proven that the Landlord has breached any other obligation under the tenancy agreement or RTA.

I therefore order that the Tenant’s tenancy at the premises is terminated and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora. 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 55A(3).

Given the Tenant’s personal circumstances, I consider that it is in the public interest that her name and all identifying details of the Tenant are suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5135788 — State of repair at Te Matawai

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5135788 — State of repair at Te Matawai

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions