What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5270300 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 5270300?

Compensation: breach duty to maintai…: $470.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: holes 1 January - 10 M…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: loss of amenity, wirin…: $850.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5270300?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5270300?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12253894-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5270300 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 5270300?

Compensation: breach duty to maintai…: $470.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: holes 1 January - 10 M…: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: loss of amenity, wirin…: $850.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5270300?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5270300?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12253894-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

9 Hall Grove, Ebdentown, Upper Hutt 5018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5270300 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

9 Hall Grove, Ebdentown, Upper Hutt 5018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5270300 — Tenancy dispute | 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 5270300 — net $1,847.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: loss of amenity, wiring work 17 - 31 December 2024	$850.00	loss of amenity, wiring work 17 - 31 December 2024
Compensation: holes 1 January - 10 March 2025	$500.00	holes 1 January - 10 March 2025
Compensation: breach duty to maintain 10 July - 20 December 2025	$470.00	breach duty to maintain 10 July - 20 December 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,847.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,847.00

Claims and awards for application 5270300 — net $1,847.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: loss of amenity, wiring work 17 - 31 December 2024

Amount: $850.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: loss of amenity, wiring work 17 - 31 December 2024

Compensation: holes 1 January - 10 March 2025

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: holes 1 January - 10 March 2025

Compensation: breach duty to maintain 10 July - 20 December 2025

Amount: $470.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: breach duty to maintain 10 July - 20 December 2025

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $1,847.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $1,847.00

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Rentcare Property Management Limited, Danesh Silvam and Agheela Silvam must pay [The tenant/s] $1,847.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy started in May 2024 and ended after the landlord gave a 90 day notice. The tenant lived in the house with her children and her sister. The tenant has claimed that the landlord did not carry out maintenance during tenancy and that there were breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). She also wants compensation because the house was rewired in December and this left more than 40 holes in the gib. All the claims are defended. The questions I have to decide include: • Should I join the owners as a party? • Should I make orders for the downstairs unit? • Should the tenant get compensation because of the wiring work? • Was there a breach of the HHS? • Was there a breach of the duty to repair and carry out maintenance? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Should I join the owners as a party?

Rentcare Property Management Limited is the only landlord named on the tenancy agreement. Before the hearing the owners asked if they could take part in the hearing, and for an adjournment. There was insufficient supporting evidence for me to allow an adjournment. The owners attended the hearing and asked to be joined as a party. Their request was supported by Rentcare. I agreed and note their attendance at the hearing was helpful because they had first hand knowledge of the work carried out.

Should I make orders for the downstairs unit?

There was a downstairs unit which was excluded from the tenancy. The tenant raised safety concerns about the downstairs unit because she could see a wiring through a hole in the ceiling and mould. The owners said they cleaned the unit thoroughly before the tenancy started and there was no mould. They also provided me with electrical safety certificates showing the power was disconnected to the unit. It seems most likely to me the downstairs unit was safe during this tenancy. All claims relating to the unit are dismissed.

Should the tenant get compensation because of the wiring work?

After the tenant moved in she noticed that some of the lights were sparking, and later on she noticed that some of the power points were not working. These two issues were attended to in a timely manner. On 28 November 2024 the tenant gave the landlords a 14 day notice. The wiring was referred to indirectly because the tenant asked for the insulation to be checked, as the electrician said it was unsafe. She also asked for the wiring in the downstairs unit to be checked. In response, the owners arranged for the house to be rewired.
In the lead up to the work one of the electricians went to the property without notice. Rentcare did confirm the wiring work by email, but the email was vague and failed to provide the tenant with advance notice of the scale of the work.
The work started on 17 December and was mostly completed by 31 December. During this time the tenant’s use of the house was affected by the lack of power, by having three electricians in the house, by the need to have ladders and tools and drop cloths in the house, by the late notice, and by the need to plan Christmas and New Years around the tradesmen.
I find there was a loss of amenity during this time. A loss of amenity results when the tenant is paying full rent but cannot use the house as intended. Compensation for a loss of amenity can be ordered even when there has been no breach by the landlord. Taking all this into account, and in particular the loss of amenity during the holiday period, I find $850 is fair compensation.
The electricians cut over 40 holes in the walls of the house when they did the rewiring. Most of these they covered by fitting the cut piece of gib back into the hole and holding it with a screw. About 5 holes were not covered at all. On 6 February 2025 the tenant emailed Rentcare and asked when the holes would be repaired because insects and spiders were crawling through the gaps. On 10 March 2025 Rentcare emailed asking for a suitable time for the plastering and painting to be done. The tenant replied that the landlord could wait until the end of the tenancy because by then she had been given a 90 day notice and she wanted some peace.
From 1 January 2025, which is when the landlord knew about the holes, to 10 March is 10 weeks. I find the delay was not reasonable because the holes were ugly and because of the insects. I find the tenant should get compensation in the amount of $50 a week. I have only allowed compensation up to the date the tenant turned down the repair.
There are two associated claims that the electrician acted inappropriately and entered the house without giving proper notice. It does seem likely that the tenant was not given any notice about the electrician attending the house on 7 December, but she consented to him coming in and doing work. There is no breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) if a tenant gives consent. This claim is dismissed. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
The tenant said she felt unsafe with the electrician in the house, and she did send an email to Rentcare at the time expressing her concern. The electrician provided a written statement denying this. This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I do not find the tenant has better evidence than the landlord. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed.

Was there a breach of the HHS?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) RTA and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. The tenant asked the Tenancy Compliance and Investigations Team (TCIT) to check the premises, and this was done at the end of February 2025. The report and photos taken identified a broken gutter, broken drains, and draughts as breaches of the HHS.
The broken drain was away from the tenancy premises and did not concern the tenant during the tenancy, so we did not hear submissions about this.
Rentcare provided a tenancy agreement with a HHS certificate stating the house fully complied with the HHS at the start of the tenancy. On the front page the report is described as a “Live document – last updated 28 /10/2022”. Rentcare said the HHS compliance was checked before this tenancy started in May 2024. I was not provided with any supporting evidence there were no draughts and no broken gutters at the start of the tenancy.
Rentcare submitted that the TCIT report was done many months into the tenancy and did not prove there were HHS breaches throughout the tenancy. They provided notes from the inspection in July 2024 and the tenant mentioned the broken gutter, but not draughts. The 14 day notice does not mention draughts either. I am persuaded by Rentcare’s submission because it seems unlikely the tenant would have forgotten to mention the many draughts identified by the TCIT. I find the tenant has not proved there were draughts at the start of the tenancy, and therefore no breach of the HHS.
The tenant has proved the gutter was broken in one corner for almost six months of the tenancy. Gutters need regular maintenance and repair so the drainage and moisture ingress standard continues to be met. However, I am persuaded I should consider this gutter repair as a maintenance issue rather than as a breach of the HHS. This is because there was an adequate guttering system at the house.
All claims relating to the HHS are dismissed. The landlord is on notice that the issues identified in the TCIT report will need to be fixed before the tenancy can be rented again.

Was there a breach of the duty to repair and carry out maintenance?

The tenant has claimed compensation because the landlord breached its obligations under section 45 RTA to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant asked for a mould evaluation because she was concerned about mould spores coming from the downstairs unit into the house and because of small amount of mould by a windowsill in one of the bedrooms. I am not persuaded by this evidence that there was a problem with mould. All claims relating to mould are dismissed.
The tenant has claimed compensation because two sliding doors were unsafe which meant she could not use the upstairs part of the house. The TCIT report identified problems with a sliding door lock downstairs and raised safety concerns about the sliding door upstairs, which could be opened onto the roof. In reply Rentcare said the tenant had never raised these issues with them during the tenancy. There is no mention of the sliding doors in the 14 day notice or the inspection reports. I am more persuaded by the landlord’s evidence and submissions. It seems most likely to me the landlord did not know about the need to repair the sliding doors. All claims relating to the sliding doors and the loss of use of the upstairs space are dismissed.
The tenant said the gardens were overgrown at the start of the tenancy and she should get compensation for her gardening work. There are no photos showing the overgrown gardens so there is no way I can see if the gardens were in a reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy. All claims relating to the gardens are dismissed.
There is supporting evidence the tenant notified the landlord about overgrown trees nearly touching the power lines in July 2024. The inspection report from November recorded that the trees were touching the power lines. A 14 day notice was served at the end of November and the trees were trimmed on 20 December. This work took about 23 weeks to complete, despite the fact it was a safety hazard.
The July inspection records that the tenant advised the landlord about the broken gutter on 10 July. The tenant also said the gutters were never cleaned, but she does not have good evidence about this. The gutter repair took 23 weeks as well. The tenant said that moisture, rats, and birds got into the roof cavity during the wait for repairs.
I find the tenant has proved the landlord failed to trim the trees and repair the gutter within a reasonable time frame. I allow compensation in the amount of $20 a week. This is at the lower end of the scale because the work was outside the house and does not seem to have had that much of an impact on the tenant’s day to day life. I also find the breaches were not serious enough to make an order for exemplary damages.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenant has asked for orders for compensation and exemplary damages because of the loss of privacy during the holiday period, and the emotional stress, physical discomfort and cumulative toll of it all. Her submission states: I feel like there was no care or consideration when it came to preparing this home for tenants, with the processes and the lack of communication in which I had to endure to get maintenance throughout my time at this property. I’m a single mother with two children, one with a disability, and my time occupying [the tenancy premises] due to these issues caused me a constant state of stress and anxiety and I never had the opportunity to fully enjoy this house once it was up to electrical safety standard. I feel my case is justified and I’d like to be compensated for the issues that have occurred through my time in [the tenancy premises] in hopes that this won’t happen to someone else.
This type of claim is covered by the right to quiet enjoyment. The landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in her use of the premises. See section 38 RTA.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. She has proved there was a loss of amenity when the wiring was done, and I have allowed compensation to remedy the breach. She has also proved there was a breach of the duty to repair, and I have allowed compensation for the loss. Any impact on quiet enjoyment has been factored into the compensation already allowed. I am not persuaded there was an additional breach of quiet enjoyment by the landlord. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because the tenant is the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords pay compensation. See section 95A RTA.

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 5270300 — net $1,847.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: loss of amenity, wiring work 17 - 31 December 2024	$850.00	loss of amenity, wiring work 17 - 31 December 2024
Compensation: holes 1 January - 10 March 2025	$500.00	holes 1 January - 10 March 2025
Compensation: breach duty to maintain 10 July - 20 December 2025	$470.00	breach duty to maintain 10 July - 20 December 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,847.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,847.00

Claims and awards for application 5270300 — net $1,847.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Compensation: loss of amenity, wiring work 17 - 31 December 2024

Amount: $850.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: loss of amenity, wiring work 17 - 31 December 2024

Compensation: holes 1 January - 10 March 2025

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: holes 1 January - 10 March 2025

Compensation: breach duty to maintain 10 July - 20 December 2025

Amount: $470.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: breach duty to maintain 10 July - 20 December 2025

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $1,847.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $1,847.00

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Filing Fee

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Rentcare Property Management Limited, Danesh Silvam and Agheela Silvam must pay [The tenant/s] $1,847.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy started in May 2024 and ended after the landlord gave a 90 day notice. The tenant lived in the house with her children and her sister. The tenant has claimed that the landlord did not carry out maintenance during tenancy and that there were breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). She also wants compensation because the house was rewired in December and this left more than 40 holes in the gib. All the claims are defended. The questions I have to decide include: • Should I join the owners as a party? • Should I make orders for the downstairs unit? • Should the tenant get compensation because of the wiring work? • Was there a breach of the HHS? • Was there a breach of the duty to repair and carry out maintenance? • Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Should I join the owners as a party?

Rentcare Property Management Limited is the only landlord named on the tenancy agreement. Before the hearing the owners asked if they could take part in the hearing, and for an adjournment. There was insufficient supporting evidence for me to allow an adjournment. The owners attended the hearing and asked to be joined as a party. Their request was supported by Rentcare. I agreed and note their attendance at the hearing was helpful because they had first hand knowledge of the work carried out.

Should I make orders for the downstairs unit?

There was a downstairs unit which was excluded from the tenancy. The tenant raised safety concerns about the downstairs unit because she could see a wiring through a hole in the ceiling and mould. The owners said they cleaned the unit thoroughly before the tenancy started and there was no mould. They also provided me with electrical safety certificates showing the power was disconnected to the unit. It seems most likely to me the downstairs unit was safe during this tenancy. All claims relating to the unit are dismissed.

Should the tenant get compensation because of the wiring work?

After the tenant moved in she noticed that some of the lights were sparking, and later on she noticed that some of the power points were not working. These two issues were attended to in a timely manner. On 28 November 2024 the tenant gave the landlords a 14 day notice. The wiring was referred to indirectly because the tenant asked for the insulation to be checked, as the electrician said it was unsafe. She also asked for the wiring in the downstairs unit to be checked. In response, the owners arranged for the house to be rewired.
In the lead up to the work one of the electricians went to the property without notice. Rentcare did confirm the wiring work by email, but the email was vague and failed to provide the tenant with advance notice of the scale of the work.
The work started on 17 December and was mostly completed by 31 December. During this time the tenant’s use of the house was affected by the lack of power, by having three electricians in the house, by the need to have ladders and tools and drop cloths in the house, by the late notice, and by the need to plan Christmas and New Years around the tradesmen.
I find there was a loss of amenity during this time. A loss of amenity results when the tenant is paying full rent but cannot use the house as intended. Compensation for a loss of amenity can be ordered even when there has been no breach by the landlord. Taking all this into account, and in particular the loss of amenity during the holiday period, I find $850 is fair compensation.
The electricians cut over 40 holes in the walls of the house when they did the rewiring. Most of these they covered by fitting the cut piece of gib back into the hole and holding it with a screw. About 5 holes were not covered at all. On 6 February 2025 the tenant emailed Rentcare and asked when the holes would be repaired because insects and spiders were crawling through the gaps. On 10 March 2025 Rentcare emailed asking for a suitable time for the plastering and painting to be done. The tenant replied that the landlord could wait until the end of the tenancy because by then she had been given a 90 day notice and she wanted some peace.
From 1 January 2025, which is when the landlord knew about the holes, to 10 March is 10 weeks. I find the delay was not reasonable because the holes were ugly and because of the insects. I find the tenant should get compensation in the amount of $50 a week. I have only allowed compensation up to the date the tenant turned down the repair.
There are two associated claims that the electrician acted inappropriately and entered the house without giving proper notice. It does seem likely that the tenant was not given any notice about the electrician attending the house on 7 December, but she consented to him coming in and doing work. There is no breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) if a tenant gives consent. This claim is dismissed. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
The tenant said she felt unsafe with the electrician in the house, and she did send an email to Rentcare at the time expressing her concern. The electrician provided a written statement denying this. This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I do not find the tenant has better evidence than the landlord. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed.

Was there a breach of the HHS?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) RTA and the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. The tenant asked the Tenancy Compliance and Investigations Team (TCIT) to check the premises, and this was done at the end of February 2025. The report and photos taken identified a broken gutter, broken drains, and draughts as breaches of the HHS.
The broken drain was away from the tenancy premises and did not concern the tenant during the tenancy, so we did not hear submissions about this.
Rentcare provided a tenancy agreement with a HHS certificate stating the house fully complied with the HHS at the start of the tenancy. On the front page the report is described as a “Live document – last updated 28 /10/2022”. Rentcare said the HHS compliance was checked before this tenancy started in May 2024. I was not provided with any supporting evidence there were no draughts and no broken gutters at the start of the tenancy.
Rentcare submitted that the TCIT report was done many months into the tenancy and did not prove there were HHS breaches throughout the tenancy. They provided notes from the inspection in July 2024 and the tenant mentioned the broken gutter, but not draughts. The 14 day notice does not mention draughts either. I am persuaded by Rentcare’s submission because it seems unlikely the tenant would have forgotten to mention the many draughts identified by the TCIT. I find the tenant has not proved there were draughts at the start of the tenancy, and therefore no breach of the HHS.
The tenant has proved the gutter was broken in one corner for almost six months of the tenancy. Gutters need regular maintenance and repair so the drainage and moisture ingress standard continues to be met. However, I am persuaded I should consider this gutter repair as a maintenance issue rather than as a breach of the HHS. This is because there was an adequate guttering system at the house.
All claims relating to the HHS are dismissed. The landlord is on notice that the issues identified in the TCIT report will need to be fixed before the tenancy can be rented again.

Was there a breach of the duty to repair and carry out maintenance?

The tenant has claimed compensation because the landlord breached its obligations under section 45 RTA to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant asked for a mould evaluation because she was concerned about mould spores coming from the downstairs unit into the house and because of small amount of mould by a windowsill in one of the bedrooms. I am not persuaded by this evidence that there was a problem with mould. All claims relating to mould are dismissed.
The tenant has claimed compensation because two sliding doors were unsafe which meant she could not use the upstairs part of the house. The TCIT report identified problems with a sliding door lock downstairs and raised safety concerns about the sliding door upstairs, which could be opened onto the roof. In reply Rentcare said the tenant had never raised these issues with them during the tenancy. There is no mention of the sliding doors in the 14 day notice or the inspection reports. I am more persuaded by the landlord’s evidence and submissions. It seems most likely to me the landlord did not know about the need to repair the sliding doors. All claims relating to the sliding doors and the loss of use of the upstairs space are dismissed.
The tenant said the gardens were overgrown at the start of the tenancy and she should get compensation for her gardening work. There are no photos showing the overgrown gardens so there is no way I can see if the gardens were in a reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy. All claims relating to the gardens are dismissed.
There is supporting evidence the tenant notified the landlord about overgrown trees nearly touching the power lines in July 2024. The inspection report from November recorded that the trees were touching the power lines. A 14 day notice was served at the end of November and the trees were trimmed on 20 December. This work took about 23 weeks to complete, despite the fact it was a safety hazard.
The July inspection records that the tenant advised the landlord about the broken gutter on 10 July. The tenant also said the gutters were never cleaned, but she does not have good evidence about this. The gutter repair took 23 weeks as well. The tenant said that moisture, rats, and birds got into the roof cavity during the wait for repairs.
I find the tenant has proved the landlord failed to trim the trees and repair the gutter within a reasonable time frame. I allow compensation in the amount of $20 a week. This is at the lower end of the scale because the work was outside the house and does not seem to have had that much of an impact on the tenant’s day to day life. I also find the breaches were not serious enough to make an order for exemplary damages.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenant has asked for orders for compensation and exemplary damages because of the loss of privacy during the holiday period, and the emotional stress, physical discomfort and cumulative toll of it all. Her submission states: I feel like there was no care or consideration when it came to preparing this home for tenants, with the processes and the lack of communication in which I had to endure to get maintenance throughout my time at this property. I’m a single mother with two children, one with a disability, and my time occupying [the tenancy premises] due to these issues caused me a constant state of stress and anxiety and I never had the opportunity to fully enjoy this house once it was up to electrical safety standard. I feel my case is justified and I’d like to be compensated for the issues that have occurred through my time in [the tenancy premises] in hopes that this won’t happen to someone else.
This type of claim is covered by the right to quiet enjoyment. The landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in her use of the premises. See section 38 RTA.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. She has proved there was a loss of amenity when the wiring was done, and I have allowed compensation to remedy the breach. She has also proved there was a breach of the duty to repair, and I have allowed compensation for the loss. Any impact on quiet enjoyment has been factored into the compensation already allowed. I am not persuaded there was an additional breach of quiet enjoyment by the landlord. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because the tenant is the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords pay compensation. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5270300 — Tenancy dispute at 9 Hall Grove, Ebdentown, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5270300 — Tenancy dispute at 9 Hall Grove, Ebdentown, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should I join the owners as a party?

Should I make orders for the downstairs unit?

Should the tenant get compensation because of the wiring work?

Was there a breach of the HHS?

Was there a breach of the duty to repair and carry out maintenance?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should I join the owners as a party?

Should I make orders for the downstairs unit?

Should the tenant get compensation because of the wiring work?

Was there a breach of the HHS?

Was there a breach of the duty to repair and carry out maintenance?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions