What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5208851 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5208851?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5208851?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5208851?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12178415-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5208851 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5208851?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5208851?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5208851?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12178415-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 41 Miro Street, Mount Maunganui, Mount Tenancy Tribunal Case 5208851 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5208851 — net $277.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: - HHS compliance statement	$250.00	- HHS compliance statement
Net award	$277.00
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$277.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5208851 — net $277.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages: - HHS compliance statement	$250.00	- HHS compliance statement
Net award	$277.00
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$277.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Bryan Norton must pay [The tenant/s] $277.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The balance of the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing in the Tauranga registry.
At the commencement of the hearing I confirmed the parties claims.
The tenant claims: a. refund of her bond. b. exemplary damages in respect of claims for: i. failure to provide adequate locks. ii. failure to provide adequate smoke alarms. iii. breach of Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) – in relation to the compliance statement and the HHS. c. reimbursement of the filing fee. d. Name suppression.
The tenant raises claims in relation to a failure to maintain the premises (in relation to the hot water cylinder and fuse board) and harassment but did not seek monetary orders in relation to these claims.
The landlord claims: a. rent arrears on the basis the tenancy was for a fixed term - $600. b. trade me expenses for early termination of a fixed term tenancy - $319 c. water rates - $15 d. compensation for stress (also referred to as exemplary damages in the landlord’s amended claim) - $1,000. I note that the amount of compensation claimed was clarified at the hearing and the tenant consented to this claim being heard at the hearing. e. payment of the bond. f. reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenancy commenced on 25 September 2024. The tenant vacated on 8 April 2025.
The tenancy premises is located in Mount Maunganui.
The notice of hearing in respect of the tenant’s application refers to a number of claims (reduction of fixed term, outgoings, work order, other miscellaneous orders). The balance of the tenant’s claims are dismissed as at the hearing the only orders sought are those specified above.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the evidence provided, but the parties should know that I have considered all the evidence. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell 2 the Court of Appeal said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, 2 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732(Cooke P)
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act under the RTA.
Before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must take into account the following factors: a) the intent of the person in committing the unlawful act, b) the effect of the unlawful act, c) the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed, d) the public interest, e) whether it is just to make the award. 3
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA.

FIXED OR PERIODIC TENANCY?

A preliminary issue is the nature of the tenancy.
The tenant says the tenancy was periodic.
The landlord says the tenancy was for a fixed term.
The tenancy agreement is on the standard Tenancy Services residential tenancy agreement form and states:
The tenant says she read the tenancy agreement as periodic and did not agree to a fixed term tenancy, but rather her understanding of the discussions between herself and the landlord was that the rent would not increase for a two-year period. The tenant says the fact that she did not initial the altered fixed term date (from 2024 to 2026) illustrates that she was not agreeing to this tenancy being a fixed term. 3 Section 109 of the RTA.
The landlord says he and the tenant met in person, he completed the tenancy agreement in front of the tenant, and it was signed together. The landlord says the fixed term was set as two years at the request of the tenant both through correspondence and verbally at the meeting when the tenancy agreement was signed. The landlord says the failure to strike out the first part of clause 2 that says the tenancy is periodic was an administrative error.
The landlord’s wife gave evidence. The landlord’s wife speaks English as a second language and while I enquired as to whether she would require an interpreter she assured me she did not. The landlord’s wife said she heard the parties agree verbally to a 2 year fixed contract. This was disputed by the tenant.
I am unable to reconcile the opposing positions between the parties as to what was said between them at the meeting to sign the tenancy agreement. In any event the tenancy agreement contains the two contradictory terms.
This issue was considered in Gong v Sunde. 4 At paragraph 12 of that decision the Court said: The Adjudicator determined that it would be unconscionable to hold a tenant to an unclear fixed term tenancy when the unclear terms were not of their doing. The law is clear under what is called the contra proferentem rule that relates to contractual interpretation. The rule is that where a promise (agreement or term) of a contract is ambiguous, then the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.
In that case, as in this case, the rule works in favour of the tenant, who says that she agreed to a periodic tenancy.
The “contra proferentem” doctrine is often applied to situations involving standardised contracts or where the parties are of unequal bargaining power, and I find both of those features are present here. The reasoning behind this rule is to encourage the drafter of a contract to be as clear and explicit as possible. Contra proferentem also places the cost of losses on the party who was in the best position to avoid the harm. This is generally the person who drafted the contract/communication, and in this case is the landlord.
Accordingly, in applying the doctrine of contra proferentem I find that the tenancy was periodic. 4 Gong v Sunde DC Manukau CIV-2013-092-304, 26 July 2013

TENANTS CLAIMS

LOCKS

The tenant claims exemplary damages in relation to the claim the landlord has failed to provide adequate security and locks to the premises.
The issue relates to the front ranch slider which the tenant says could not be locked. I understand the ranch slider was unable to be locked from the outside but was able to be locked from the inside.
Section 46 of the RTA applies, and it states: 46Locks (1)The landlord shall provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. (2)Neither the landlord nor the tenant shall alter any existing lock or similar device, or add to or remove from the premises any lock or similar device, without the consent of the other given at the time that, or a reasonable time before, the alteration, removal, or addition is carried out. (3)Failure to comply with subsection (1), and contravention of subsection (2), without reasonable excuse, is each hereby declared to be an unlawful act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 5
The landlord explained that the back door had adequate locks to enable the premises to be locked and secured when the tenant was inside or outside the premises.
The landlord explained the ranch slider, which was the front door, was able to be securely locked from the inside, however the tenant could not leave from the outside and lock the ranch slider.
The key for the ranch slider was missing for the duration of the tenancy. I raised that this might indicate the premises was not secure and that the locks ought to have been changed if the key was missing. The landlord said that if 5 See section 46(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. the premises was locked from the inside that the keys would not be able to open the premises.
I am not satisfied on the evidence provided that the landlord has failed to provide locks sufficient to ensure the premises are reasonably secure. The claim in respect of the locks is dismissed.

SMOKE ALARMS

The tenant says the landlord did not comply with his obligations in respect of the smoke alarms.
Under section 45(1)(ba) of the RTA, a landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed on the landlord by regulations made under section 138A. The relevant regulations are the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 (“SAI Regulations”)
The SAI Regulations set out the following requirements: • Landlords must ensure qualifying smoke alarms are installed and operational. • Smoke alarms must be installed in every sleeping space, or within 3 metres of the entrance to the sleeping space, and in each level of a multi-level dwelling. • All new smoke alarms must be photoelectric, have a battery life of at least eight years or be hard-wired, be installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions, meet international standards, be in full working order, and have their expiry date displayed. • Existing smoke alarms do not need to be replaced if they are in full working order and have not passed their expiry date.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 6
The tenants’ evidence is that there was one smoke alarm in the premises and she refers to it as being in dead space. However, I am not satisfied on the evidence provided that the fire alarm was not within 3 metres of the entrance to each sleeping space.
The tenant has raised that the smoke alarm was not compliant with the requirements above however no evidence to corroborate this was presented (for example there was no evidence of the current fire alarms expiry date). 6 See s 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA,
A 14-day notice served on the landlord on 25 November 2024 requests the landlord check the smoke alarms are working and have adequate battery. This does not indicate that the smoke alarm was not working. The tenant referred to the smoke alarm being tested but did not say it was not operational.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven that the landlord failed to ensure the rental premises were fitted with working smoke alarms that meet the regulatory requirements referred to in the RTA. The claim in respect of smoke alarms is dismissed.

HEALTHY HOMES COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 13A(1CA) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 13A(1CA), a landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a compliance statement, made and signed by the landlord, a. that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and b. including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5) (being the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (“HHS”))
The HHS requires that the landlord provide a statement in each tenancy agreement that confirms that the premises complies with each of the five healthy homes standards or why the premises are subject to any lawful exemptions. These five standards relate to heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage and draught stopping.
Breaching the landlord’s s13A(1CA) obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. 7
The tenant provided the healthy homes compliance statement which states the healthy homes compliance date was 01/01/2024. It also records that the property is already compliant.
The heating standard information is incomplete.
The insulation standard information says there is ceiling insulation with an R- value of “1975” when it was installed. It appears this is the year it was installed. There is no other information about ceiling or underfloor insulation. 7 See section 13A(11F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The ventilation standard information appears to omit information about the kitchen extractor fan. I refer to this further below.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard information was partially incomplete.
The draught stopping standard information did appear to have been properly completed.
The landlord said he completed the compliance statement as best he could. The landlord said he considered that as the property was built in 1975 it is exempt from complying with the HHS. I am not satisfied any exemption, particularly in relation to providing a completed an HHS compliance statement is applicable in this case. The Tenancy Services template sets out the general exemptions in relation to the HHS standards and there is no evidence to suggest this premises falls within the exemptions.
I am satisfied the landlord failed to provide the tenant with the required completed and signed HHS compliance statement, prescribed by sections 13A(1CA) and 45(1)(bb) of the RTA. I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act by failing to provide a complete HHS statement.
The landlord should have reasonably known that he is required to provide the tenant with a complete HHS current level of compliance statement with a written tenancy agreement. It appears this was known as the HHS compliance statement was partially completed. I find the landlord intentionally breached 13A(1CA) of the RTA.
The tenant was entitled to rely on their statutory right to receive information about whether the premises was healthy homes compliant and if it wasn’t, whether it was exempt from these requirements and the nature of any exemption.
It is in the tenant’s interest to receive exemplary damages for the landlords’ breach.
It is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations and to ensure the tenants have fully completed and accurate healthy homes compliance information given to them prior to the commencement of the tenancy so they can make an informed decision whether or not to rent a noncompliant home.
I do not consider there are any crucial mitigating or aggravating factors in this case.
I consider that would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $250.00 in exemplary damages for the reasons above and I make an order for this amount.

HEALTHY HOMES COMPLIANCE

The HHS provided for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
The tenant has claimed that the landlord has breached their obligations as they relate to the HHS ventilation standard.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA requires compliance with the HHS.
A breach of this obligation is deemed to be an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages can be ordered.
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered as set out in Schedule 1A to the RTA, is $7,200.00.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: All private rentals must comply within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2025. Ventilation standard:
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable.
The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
The tenant says the kitchen extractor fan was connected to a unsafe power supply, whereby the power plug was taped with exposed wires. The tenant also said the bathroom extractor fan only worked when the lights were on. I am not satisfied that these concerns result in a breach of the healthy homes standards. The evidence was that both the kitchen and extractor fan work.
The kitchen extractor may have needed a safe power supply. I have insufficient evidence why this did not occur during this tenancy however the extractor was otherwise working.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven a breach of the HHS ventilation standard, and this claim is dismissed.

FAILURE TO MAINTAIN

Section 45 (1) (b) of the RTA requires the landlord 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.
The tenant raised concerns about the hot water cylinder and a fuse board.
The tenant says that the hot water cylinder was covered with cardboard making it unsafe.
The tenant says the fuse board appears not to have the appropriate certification as it is set on an asbestos board. The tenant did not seek any monetary order in relation to these claims.
I am not satisfied on the evidence provided by the tenant that the state of the hot water cylinder or the fuse board could be considered to be a breach of the landlord’s responsibilities to maintain the premises.
While no formal order was sought in relation to these matters, I record that the claims that the landlord has breached his responsibilities in relation to the hot water cylinder and fuse board are dismissed.

HARRASSMENT

The tenant claims the landlord has breached her quiet enjoyment to a level that amounts to harassment.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 8
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. 9 The tenant indicated she did not seek any monetary order in relation to her claim of harassment.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds 10 , considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or 8 See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 9 See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA. 10 MacDonald v Dodds CIV-2009-019-1524, (District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010 exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder 11 the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
The tenant says the landlord harassed her by contacting her previous employer approximately 2 months after the tenancy ended enquiring about a reference for a tenancy. The tenant says she did not provide her previous employer as a reference in relation to this tenancy.
The landlord acknowledged contacting the tenant’s previous employer to enquire whether she has a pattern of reneging on signed agreements.
The landlord’s act of contacting the tenant’s previous employer occurred approximately two months after the tenancy had ended. I consider that this act could not be considered interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises as the tenant no longer resided in the premises. For this reason, the claim is dismissed.
The tenant also raised in her written evidence that the landlord has breached her privacy by advising neighbouring tenants about her concerns in relation to another occupant in the premises above her. I note that I do not consider this matter would give rise to a complaint of a breach of quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in relation to privacy breaches generally. 11 Whatiura v Shoulder Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RENT ARREARS / TRADE ME LISTING FEE

Where are landlord consents to the early termination of a fixed term tenancy the landlord is entitled to recover the reasonable costs incurred as a result of the early termination. A landlord who seeks to recover expenses from a tenant must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant. 12
As a result of the finding above that this was a periodic tenancy, the tenant is not liable for rent until the commencement of the replacement tenancy or the trade me listing fee and these claims are dismissed.

WATER RATES

The landlord claimed water rates of $15. The landlord provided an invoice in support of the claim. The tenant claimed she paid the full amount of a previous water rates invoice, including the usage and fixed fee and there should be an adjustment to reflect this. The landlord agreed with this.
The tenant’s credit for water rates is calculated as follows: 26 February 2025 – 9 April 2025 $10.61 Less overpayment for water rates invoice for period 27 September 2025 -13 January 2025 $12.81 Credit $2.20
The tenant did not suggest she had made an overpayment for the water rates from 13 January 2025 – 26 February 2025, therefore no further adjustment has been made to the water rates. As the adjustment has resulted in a small credit, I dismiss the claim in respect of water rates.

STRESS

The landlord claimed compensation for stress (he also referred to this as exemplary damages in his written application).
The landlord referred to this as a counterclaim under section 40(2)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act. The landlord said in his written statement that the tenant has breached her obligations by interfering with his reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy as a landlord. This comes about as a result of the 12 See Section 44A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. landlord’s understanding that the tenant claimed he forged the fixed term clause of the tenancy agreement (which at this hearing, the tenant clarified her acceptance that the tenancy agreement was not amended following her meeting with the landlord to sign it), the stress of the tenant’s complaints during the tenancy, the stress of this process and the stress resulting from concerns that the tenant is speaking negatively about him to the subsequent tenant.
The landlord’s claim was made specifically pursuant to s 40 (2)(c) of the RTA. This provision of the RTA provides a tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. 13
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. 14
As noted above harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". 15
The landlord indicated he has been a landlord for many years. I consider he should anticipate some level of stress that comes from running a business, which providing rental properties is. The tenant is entitled to raise complaints about her tenancy and bring a claim to the Tribunal. These actions cannot be considered a breach of the tenant’s responsibilities under the RTA or the tenancy agreement.
The tenant gave evidence that she too has experienced significant stress resulting from this tenancy.
I am not satisfied on the evidence that the tenant has cause or permitted interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood.
I am not satisfied on the evidence that the landlord has proven he should be compensated for stress arising from any breach by the tenant.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for stress is dismissed.

FILING FEE

As the tenant has partly succeeded with the claim, I have awarded the filing fee of $27. 13 See section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 14 See section 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 15 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.

BOND

The Bond is to be refunded to the tenant.

SUPPRESSION

Section 95A of the RTA relates to suppression orders. The relevant subsections state: (1)The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.... ...(4) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (5) An order under subsection (4) may be made subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant sought name suppression and as she has had substantial success with her claims (her main claim being that she sought a refund of the bond), I make an order for her to have name suppression.

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

FIXED OR PERIODIC TENANCY?

TENANTS CLAIMS

LOCKS

SMOKE ALARMS

HEALTHY HOMES COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

HEALTHY HOMES COMPLIANCE

FAILURE TO MAINTAIN

HARRASSMENT

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

WATER RATES

STRESS

FILING FEE

BOND

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

FIXED OR PERIODIC TENANCY?

TENANTS CLAIMS

LOCKS

SMOKE ALARMS

HEALTHY HOMES COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

HEALTHY HOMES COMPLIANCE

FAILURE TO MAINTAIN

HARRASSMENT

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

WATER RATES

STRESS

FILING FEE

BOND

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions