What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5472317 about?

The tribunal order states: The order dated 16 June 2026 is recalled, amended and reissued pursuant to

How much money was awarded in case 5472317?

Rent Arrears: $122.62 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $114.05 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure to comply with…: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Standards: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Standards: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5472317?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5472317?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13829306-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5472317 about?

The tribunal order states: The order dated 16 June 2026 is recalled, amended and reissued pursuant to

How much money was awarded in case 5472317?

Rent Arrears: $122.62 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $114.05 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure to comply with…: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Standards: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Standards: $500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5472317?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5472317?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13829306-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5472317 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5472317 — net $2,113.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
By consent: Rent arrears to 25 April 2026	$122.62		By consent: Rent arrears to 25 April 2026
By consent: Water rates (27/03/2026 – 25/04/2026	$114.05		By consent: Water rates (27/03/2026 – 25/04/2026
standards	$100.00		t in doing these things and seek compensation for their time and labour. I find $100.00 to be reasonable considering the work that needed to be done.
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with healthy homes	$50.00		Failure to comply with healthy homes
Compensation: Failure to comply with healthy homes		$2,000.00	Failure to comply with healthy homes
standards		$500.00	46. Taking these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $500.00 in exemplary damages.
Total award	$386.67	$2,500.00
Net award		$2,113.33
Bond		$1,900.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,113.33

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5472317 — net $2,113.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
By consent: Rent arrears to 25 April 2026	$122.62		By consent: Rent arrears to 25 April 2026
By consent: Water rates (27/03/2026 – 25/04/2026	$114.05		By consent: Water rates (27/03/2026 – 25/04/2026
standards	$100.00		t in doing these things and seek compensation for their time and labour. I find $100.00 to be reasonable considering the work that needed to be done.
Exemplary damages: Failure to comply with healthy homes	$50.00		Failure to comply with healthy homes
Compensation: Failure to comply with healthy homes		$2,000.00	Failure to comply with healthy homes
standards		$500.00	46. Taking these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $500.00 in exemplary damages.
Total award	$386.67	$2,500.00
Net award		$2,113.33
Bond		$1,900.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,113.33

Order

The order dated 16 June 2026 is recalled, amended and reissued pursuant to the terms of this order.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $2,113.33 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,900.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately to [The tenant/s].

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 27 May 2026.
On 16 June 2026, I issued an order requiring the landlord to pay the tenant $2,263.33. Due to an administrative error, the table on the first page did not include the tenant’s liability to pay $100.00 for cleaning and $50.00 for the lawns. Therefore, the amount ordered was incorrect. The correct amount the landlord must pay the tenant is $2,113.33. The purpose of this order is to correctly record the total amount the landlord must pay the tenant. In all other respects, this order remains the same as the order dated 16 June 2026.
The tenancy began on 14 September 2018 and was a fixed-term tenancy ending on 13 September 2019. The fixed term was renewed per the below: a. 13 September 2019 – 10 September 2020 b. 10 September 2020 – 10 January 2022 c. 10 January 2022 – 8 March 2023.
From 9 March 2023, the tenancy was periodic.
The tenancy ended on 25 April 2026.
The tenant claims the premises did not comply with the healthy homes standards. The landlord has filed their own cross-application seeking compensation for cleaning and repairs. The landlord withdrew their claim in relation to the keys. The issues I must determine are: a. Did the premises comply with the healthy homes standards? b. If not, should exemplary damages be ordered? c. Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy? d. Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred during the tenancy?
Before determining these issues, I discuss some general legal principles that apply to this case.

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Standard of proof

Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
A lot of evidence was given at the hearing. This decision will only focus on the relevant parts. Compensation and exemplary damages
Compensation is generally awarded for actual financial loss and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as, a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy, distress, inconvenience and emotional suffering.
The following factors are relevant when deciding to award compensation: 1 a. The nature of the breach; b. The duration of the breach; and• The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and deter. They are like a fine.
Under the RTA, exemplary damages may be ordered for certain defined, unlawful acts.
A party cannot seek exemplary damages later than 12 months after the date of the commission of the unlawful act. 2 The date of the unlawful act is the date on which the act or omission that constitutes the breach occurred. 1 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 109(2)(b).
Section 109(3) RTA states that exemplary damages may be ordered if the Tribunal determines the unlawful act was committed intentionally and it is just, having regard to 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 tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. The public interest.
In the District Court decision of Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667, the Court needed to consider a case where the landlord had unlawfully entered the tenancy. That was not disputed. The evidence was that because of a misunderstanding around notices being given, the landlord went into the tenancy without the necessary notice having first been served on the tenant.
Judge Neave in the District Court agreed with an earlier summary of the law from the Tribunal that: 2 Before an award for exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
Judge Neave went on to accept that the unlawful entry was made in error, and on that basis there was no intention established, therefore there was no basis to order exemplary damages. TENANT’S CLAIMS

Did the premises comply with the healthy homes standards?

The law

Section 45(1)(bb) RTA requires a landlord to comply with the healthy homes standards (HHS). 2 Chief Executive, ex party Edmonson v Walls North Shore TT 548/92
The HHS can be found in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. The regulations provide a minimum set of requirements for heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture and drainage.
Regulation 26 relates to draught stopping. It states that the premises must be free from gaps between, and holes in, building elements that: a. Are not intentional parts of the construction of the premises (such as drainage and ventilation openings); and b. Allow draughts into or out of the premises; and c. Are unreasonable.
Regulation 8 relates to heating and states: 8Main living room must have qualifying heaters The main living room of the premises must be heated – (a)by 1 or more qualifying heaters with a total heating capacity of at least the required heating capacity for the main living room; or (b)by 1 or more qualifying heaters as assessed under regulation 10A; or (c)by geothermal heating as provided in regulation 10B.
Regulation 9 defines what constitutes a qualifying heater. It states: 9Qualifying heaters A heater is a qualifying heater if – (a)it is installed as a fixture to the premises; and (b)either – (i)the heater (or if it is a fixed heat pump, the indoor unit) is in the living room; or (ii)the heater supplies heat directly into the living room (for example, through a duct or vent located in the living room); and (c)it has a heating capacity of at least 1.5KW; and (d)if it is an electric heater or a fixed heat pump, it has a thermostat; and (e)it is not an unacceptable heater.
An unacceptable heater is defined as follows: 3 a. An open fire: b. An unflued combustion heater: c. If the required heating capacity for the living room is greater than 2.4KW, an electric heater.
Regulation 28 relates to moisture and drainage, and the requirement to have a ground moisture barrier. It relevantly states: 28Suspended floors to have a ground moisture barrier This regulation applies if – (a)the tenancy building has a suspended floor; and (b)the subfloor space is enclosed. The tenancy building’s subfloor space must – (a)have a ground moisture barrier that – (i)is made of a material that meets the specifications for an on-ground vapour barrier set out in section 8 of NZS 4246:2016; and (ii)was installed in accordance with section 8 of NZS 4246:2016; or (b)have an alternative ground moisture barrier that – (i)has a vapour flow resistance of at least 50 MN s/g; and (ii)was installed by an appropriate professional installer. ...
Section 8.2.5 – 8.2.7 of the NZS 4246:2016 relates to the installation of a ground moisture barrier. It states:
2.5. Cut the polythene from the edge of each run to the piles to allow the sheet to be position with the slit around the pile.
2.6. Make small cuts in the polythene around the piles to allow the sheet to be folded up by a minimum of 50mm and taped to the piles (see Figure 34). NOTE – Taping around piles is required for durability but not for moisture seal. 3 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, regulation 9(3).
2.7. Tape all joins and cuts made to allow the piles to protrude through the polythene with the tape covering each side of the join by a minimum of 50mm. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the premises did not comply with the healthy homes standards, because it was very cold. The tenant claims the landlord provided them with a portable heater for the main living room but refused to install a heat pump. The tenant also claims there were unreasonable gaps in doors and windows. For example, the tenant claims the laundry door had a gap that allowed grass inside the premises every time the lawns were mowed and the screen door had holes in it.
The tenant claims they asked the landlord for documents proving the premises were compliant as early as March 2023 however, the landlord never provided these to them.
The landlord claims they tried to ensure compliance with the healthy homes standards themselves using the information and tools provided on the Tenancy Services Website. The landlord submitted a copy of a heating report completed by them on 27 April 2021.
The landlord gave evidence that the premises were assessed by DB Home Services Ltd on 28 March 2026. The assessor found that the premises did not comply with the heating, draught stopping and moisture barrier requirements. The landlord paid for remedial work to be completed on 5 April 2026 to bring the premises up to compliance. The landlord received confirmation from DB Home Services Ltd on 6 April 2026 that the premises complied with the healthy homes standards.
The landlord denies that they refused or declined to give the tenant any documents requested by them in relation to the healthy homes standards. Analysis
The fixed-term tenancy was renewed from 10 January 2022 to 8 March 2023. Because the tenancy was renewed between 1 July 2021 and 27 August 2022, the landlord had 90 days from 10 January 2022 to comply with the healthy homes standards. 4 The due date for compliance was therefore 10 April 2022.
The landlord gave evidence that they had the premises assessed by DB Home Services Ltd on 28 March 2026. The findings from the assessor were that the premises did not comply with the healthy homes standards for the following reasons: 4 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, clause 2(2). a. The size of the main living room required a 4.5KW heater. b. The doorstopper on the front door needed to be replaced to meet the draught stopping requirements. c. The ground moisture barrier was not taped around the piles and therefore not installed in accordance with NZS 4246:2016.
I accept the landlord’s evidence and find the premises did not comply with the healthy homes standards on 28 March 2026. The fact that the premises did not comply on this date means I consider it more likely than not that they did not comply on 10 April 2022 either. The landlord had remedial work completed on 5 April 2026 and the updated report confirms compliance with the healthy homes standards from 6 April 2026. On the balance of probabilities, I find the premises did not comply with the healthy homes standards from 10 April 2022 to 5 April 2026.
The landlord’s failure to comply with the healthy homes standards is a strict liability offence. This means that it does not matter what steps the landlord took to try to ensure compliance such as, using the information and tools provided on the Tenancy Services website. All that matter is whether the premises in fact complied with the healthy homes standards by the due date. I find they did not. For this reason, I find the landlord breached section 45(1)(bb) RTA.
The tenant seeks compensation for the breach. I find $2,000.00 to be appropriate, considering the following factors: a. The nature of the breach. Failure to comply with the healthy homes standards is a serious breach of the RTA. This is evidenced by the fact that the maximum amount of exemplary damages that may be ordered is $7,200.00. 5 The nature of the breach in this case is moderate, as the premises did not comply with three out of five standards. The most serious breach relates to heating. The breaches regarding draught stopping and the ground moisture barrier are less serious. This is because only one door was found to have an unreasonably sized gap and a ground moisture barrier was installed during the tenancy, it just wasn’t taped to the piles. b. The duration of the breach. The breach endured from 10 April 2022 – 5 April 2026, which is a period of approximately 4 years. This is a long time. c. The effect of the breach on the party. I accept the tenant’s evidence that lack of an adequate heater in the main living room meant the premises were cold, especially in winter. The tenant endured 4 winters at the 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A. premises without adequate heating between 10 April 2022 and the end of the tenancy.
The amount of compensation ordered equates to $500.00 per winter, which I consider fairly and reasonably reflects the loss in amenity suffered by the tenant.

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

Failure to comply with the healthy homes standards is an unlawful act, for which a maximum amount of $7,200.00 in exemplary damages may be ordered. 6
The first issue I must determine is whether the tenant is within time to apply for exemplary damages.
The obligation of a landlord to comply with the healthy homes standards is an ongoing one. Where there is a failure to comply with the heathy homes standards, the breach is a continuing breach until such a time as the premises comply. This means the 12-month limitation period for applying for exemplary damages runs from the last day the breach continued. In this case, the breach continued until 6 April 2026. The tenant’s application was filed on 19 March 2026, which means they are within the timeframe to apply for exemplary damages.
The next issues I must determine are whether the landlord acted intentionally.
The landlord tried to ensure compliance by educating themselves on the standards however, the landlord does not have any relevant expertise that would make it reasonable for them to rely on their own assessment of the premises. The landlord’s calculation of the heating capacity for the main living room was incorrect, because the landlord did not know to include the kitchen in their calculation. The kitchen forms part of an open plan living room. By failing to seek expert advice about whether the premises complied with the healthy homes standards, I find the landlord acted intentionally. Intentionally does not mean maliciously. It simply means that the landlord knew about the need to comply with the standards and did not seek professional advice to try to reasonably ensure compliance.
I find it just to order exemplary damages considering the following factors: a. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act. I find the landlord acted intentionally. b. The effect of the unlawful act. See paragraph [38(c)] above. 6 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. The tenant has an interest in living in premises that are healthy, warm and meet the standards required by law. d. The public interest. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that landlords are deterred from failing to comply with the healthy homes standards.
Taking these matters into account, I order the landlord to pay $500.00 in exemplary damages. In settling on this figure, I have also had regard to the level of compensation already ordered, which will act as a general deterrent. Further, the most serious breach relates to the failure to provide a qualifying heater. I consider the other breaches fall towards the lower end of the spectrum for reasons already mentioned. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

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

The law

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 7
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 8 It does not mean commercially clean, 9 spotless 10 or to a hotel or motel standard. 11 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 12 Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy, because the carpet was not vacuumed, the oven and rangehood were dirty, and there was dust and insects on the windowsills. The landlord also claims there were some small screws left behind and bottles in the bathroom. The rubbish bins were also full. 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1985, section 40(1)(e)(iii). 8 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 9 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 10 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 11 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 12 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].
The tenant claims the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant claims 4 people cleaned the premises and they tried to ensure it was reasonably clean and tidy.
Both parties submitted their own photographs. Analysis
Based on the photographs submitted, I find the tenant left the premises reasonably clean and tidy, except for the oven and rangehood. The rubbish bins were full at the end of the tenancy. Therefore, I also find the tenant did not remove all rubbish.
The photographs submitted by the landlord show a lot of grease on the rangehood. They also show residue on the oven trays. The rest of the premises appears reasonably clean and tidy.
From the tenant’s photographs, it appears the floors have been vacuumed and mopped, and bench surfaces wiped down. The landlord did not submit any photographs that support their claim that the floors were not vacuumed. The photographs submitted do not show any debris on the floors.
A couple of screws appear to have been left behind by the tenant, as well as a small piece of soap in the shower. These things do not render the premises unreasonably clean and tidy. The premises are a small unit and are relatively dated. The rent was $515.00 per week. The state of the premises at the end of the tenancy was reasonably clean and tidy considering these factors. The only exception is the rangehood, oven and outdoor bins.
The landlord cleaned the premises themselves and put the bins out for collection. They did not incur a cost in doing these things and seek compensation for their time and labour. I find $100.00 to be reasonable considering the work that needed to be done.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $100.00.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises during the tenancy?

The law

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 13 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B.
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 14 Mark on living room wall
The landlord submitted a photograph of the wall in the living room taken in December 2024. No obvious marks are apparent. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show a black mark to the wall in the living room. The mark appears to be a thick scuff mark, which the landlord claims did not come out with cleaning.
I find the mark occurred during the tenancy however, I am not convinced it exceeds fair wear and tear. The premises are small, which means the rate of fair wear and tear is higher than would be the case in a larger premises. This was also an 8 year tenancy. It is reasonably foreseeable that walls will incur marks as a result of every day living over time.
For this reason, the landlord has not proven this claim, and it is dismissed. Bathroom windowsill
The bathroom has a bath with a shower over it. On the wall opposite the showerhead is a windowsill. The tenant stored bathroom products such as shampoo and conditioner on this sill. The landlord says this caused water damage to the paint. The landlord submitted a photograph of the sill. There are marks on it from bottles and the paint is cracking and peeling.
I am not convinced, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage exceeds fair wear and tear. The window is situated in a bathroom over a bath/shower. It is in a place highly likely to attract water when people are showering. It’s placement also naturally invites the storage of toiletries on it. It is reasonably foreseeable that a window of this nature will attract water and deteriorate as a result of everyday living over time.
For this reason, the landlord has not proven this claim, and it is dismissed. Lampshade
The landlord claims two lampshades were broken during the tenancy, one in the hallway and one in the kitchen. They did not submit any photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy and the tenant claims the damage was preexisting. The landlord points to the fact that the written inspection report 14 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. completed at the beginning of the tenancy does not note any damage to the lampshades. This is not helpful to the landlord’s case, because the written inspection report has only been completed and signed by the landlord. The tenant has not completed or signed it. Further, a new inspection report was provided with the renewal of tenancy documents and has not been completed at all. It is entirely empty.
In the absence of a written entry report completed and signed by both parties, or photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy, I am not convinced the damage to the lampshades occurred during the tenancy.
For this reason, the landlord has not proven this claim, and it is dismissed. Lawns
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for parking their car on the front lawn and causing damage to it. They submitted a photograph taken on 7 August 2022, which shows part of the tenant’s car parked on the lawn. The wheels appear to have damaged the grass. The landlord also submitted a photograph of the same lawn area taken on 25 April 2026, which show the grass has not fully recovered.
The tenant claims the tenancy agreement does not prohibit them from parking on the lawn. The tenant also claims the damage is from water pooling on the ground and that contractor’s parked their car in the same place after the tenancy ended. The tenant claims the only reason the landlord has raised this as an issue is in response to the tenant’s claim.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the lawn was damaged during the tenancy by the tenant parking their car on it. The landlord’s photographs support this. The tenant did not submit any photographs to support their claims about water pooling in this area or the parking of vehicles by contractors.
The damage exceeds fair wear and tear. The landlord seeks $250.00 in compensation however, they have not repaired the lawn to date and the premises have been re-tenanted. For these reasons, the landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for a nominal amount of $50.00. This fairly reflects the extent of the damage, which is relatively minimal. The lawn has mostly recovered since 7 August 2022. Filing fee & name suppression
Both parties have been substantially successful with their claims. Therefore, I do not order either party to reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I grant both parties’ request for name suppression. L Ryken 30 June 2026 (re-issued)

Tenancy Tribunal case 5472317 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5472317 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Did the premises comply with the healthy homes standards?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

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

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Did the premises comply with the healthy homes standards?

Should exemplary damages be ordered?

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

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions