What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4472883?

The tribunal order states: Karie Rochelle Adolph must pay Just Listed Limited As Agent For Huan Jerry Liu

How much money was awarded in case 4472883?

Cleaning: $3,021.05 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $265.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $8,120.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,860.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $188.02 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4472883?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4472883?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10883274-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4472883?

The tribunal order states: Karie Rochelle Adolph must pay Just Listed Limited As Agent For Huan Jerry Liu

How much money was awarded in case 4472883?

Cleaning: $3,021.05 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $265.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $8,120.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,400.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,860.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $188.02 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4472883?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4472883?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10883274-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Kelgary Place, Wellsford, Wellsford 0900 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4472883 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4472883 — net $14,995.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$188.02	Water rates
Repairs: Insurance excess	$8,120.00	Repairs: Insurance excess
Meth testing/Cleaning	$3,021.05	Meth testing/Cleaning
Repairs: Meth decontamination insurance excess	$2,400.00	Repairs: Meth decontamination insurance excess
Rubbish removal	$1,860.50	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$265.00	Lawns and Garden work
Exemplary damages - unlawful use	$1,200.00	Exemplary damages - unlawful use
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$14,995.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$14,995.01

Order

Karie Rochelle Adolph must pay Just Listed Limited As Agent For Huan Jerry Liu $14,995.01 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (5422406-003) to Just Listed Limited As Agent For Huan Jerry Liu immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.
A substituted service order is made whereby the tenant is treated as served by email to the email address on the tenancy agreement and application on 18 April 2024.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing. Background
The tenancy commenced on 15 March 2021 and ended on 14 September 2022.
This application was filed on 30 December 2022. Service
Two earlier hearings (2 September 2023 and 22 February 2024) were adjourned to allow for the landlord to provide an address for service for the tenant.
Section 91A(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 sets out the process required in situations such as this where the landlord has filed an application more than two months after termination of the tenancy.
The landlord attempted to locate the tenant by making enquiries with Work and Income NZ, the Police, a friend of the tenant and by engaging a Private Investigator.
I am satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made to locate the tenant.
On 29 September 2023 the landlord’s agent contacted Tenancy Services and provided a service address for the tenant. Unfortunately, an attempt to serve the tenant at that address was not carried out until 11 July 2024. By that date the tenant had left that address and service was unsuccessful.
The landlord and his agent attended todays hearing not knowing that an attempt had been made to serve the tenant, but that the attempt was unsuccessful.
I note that the tenant is a party to an application in the Tribunal concerning the address that was provided as the address for service. In those proceedings the tenant has used the email address which she also used for this tenancy.
I am satisfied that the tenant has been advised of this application and this hearing by email sent to her on several occasions since the application was filed. I therefore dispense with service on the tenant as set out in section 91A(2) and instead make an order for substituted service in accordance with section 91B(2)(b). Application
The landlord has applied for water rates, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

On the application the landlord applied for water rates totalling $428.33. At the hearing the landlord claimed $994.62.
The landlord has produced four water rates invoices. The total of those invoices after deducting the fixed fee is $188.02.
I am only able to award for water rates based on the invoices produced which is ordered.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: five doors damaged, multiple wall holes, damage to the aluminium front door, damaged stainless steel bench top, damaged fibro cement weather board, broken glass in garage window, kitchen cupboard broken, laundry tub pull-out hose damaged, garage roller door damaged. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord has claimed insurance for this damage and there are nine separate claims of insurance excess which is awarded totalling $8,120.00. Methamphetamine contamination
Prior to commencement of the tenancy the landlord arranged for methamphetamine testing at the premises. The test results show a composite result of 0.37μg per 100cm².
After the tenancy ended the landlord arranged for methamphetamine testing which showed a composite result of 81.80μg per 100cm². The landlord arranged for individual testing of the premises.
Inside the house the individual test results ranged from 4.72μg per 100cm² to
40μg per 100cm².
The Tribunal has previously found that damage occurs, and decontamination is necessary, when levels of methamphetamine contamination are above 15μg/100cm². (Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper 1 ) This is the level adopted 1 Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 – CIV2018-009-2490 by the “Gluckman Report” dated 29 May 2018. The Gluckman Report concludes that there is no evidence of risk of harm from second or third hand exposure to methamphetamine residue measured at or less than 15μg/100cm² unless there is evidence to suggest that the premises have been used for manufacture.
Neither the Gluckman Report nor the previously used New Zealand Standard 2 , which recommended a level of 1.5μg/100cm², are embedded into law, they both represent guidelines and are not regulatory. The court in the Full Circle case considered whether the Tribunal was wrong to rely on the Gluckman Report instead of the New Zealand Standard and concluded that the Gluckman Report represented the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination. Therefore, the Tribunal continues to adopt a level of 15μg/100cm² as a level that requires remediation for contamination.
The test results show that damage has occurred, and decontamination is necessary. After considering the evidence, I am satisfied that it is more probable than not that the tenant herself engaged in, or allowed, methamphetamine related activity.
The landlord claimed insurance for the decontamination. The tenant is responsible for the insurance excess totalling $2,400.00.
The landlord has claimed for the cost of testing for methamphetamine totalling $3.021.05. That is also awarded against the tenant. Exemplary damages
Just Listed Limited As Agent For Huan Jerry Liu claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using or allowing the premises to be used for illicit drug taking, namely methamphetamine.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is unlawful to consume, smoke or otherwise use, any controlled drug. I am satisfied that the tenant has breached her obligations under the tenancy agreement and the RTA by breaching section 7(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. Schedule one of that Act classifies methamphetamine as a Class A controlled drug. 2 NZS 8510:2017³ (NZS)
The tenant has either used or allowed a controlled drug to be used at the premises during the tenancy as evidenced by the methamphetamine testing carried out by the landlord. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has proven that the tenant used, or permitted the use of, the premises for an unlawful purpose (the use of methamphetamine). This is a breach of the RTA and an unlawful act pursuant to s40(3A)(c) RTA.
I am satisfied that the methamphetamine use was intentional and that the tenant is legally responsible for it.
After taking into account the tenant’s intent (to use, or allow the use of, prohibited drugs inside rented premises), the effect on the landlord (significant inconvenience from testing, making an insurance claim, arranging for decontamination of the premises and taking these proceedings), the interests of the landlord (that their property not be implicated in unlawful activity that may damage it or reduce the ability to rent it out in the future) and the public interest (that tenants be discouraged from using premises for unlawful activity), I award $1,200.00 which is over half the maximum award because of the level of contamination and the certainty of use. Loss of rent
The landlord claimed for loss of rent due to the time taken to complete the decontamination and repairs due to the damage. The landlord advised that this cost was not available to him through his insurance policy. There are likely to be many factors affecting the delay in carrying out the repairs such as the limited availability of contractors in the area (as mentioned by the landlord) and the distance between the premises and where the landlord lives (also mentioned).
In these situations, recovery is limited to actual loss resulting from the breach that was reasonably foreseeable when the contract was made.
I am satisfied in this case that a reasonable person would foresee that the premises may not be able to be re-let immediately where this type of damage occurred requiring significant repair work. In addition, a landlord cannot expect that premises will always be re-let immediately after the end of a tenancy. A reasonable landlord would foresee in the ordinary course that there will be periods during which the premises are not available to be let for a variety of reasons, including maintenance and repairs, even if caused by the actions of a tenant.
In addition, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the tenant is solely responsible for the delay in carrying out the repairs. It is unfortunate that the landlord’s insurance policy did not cover this cost but that cannot be the fault of the tenant.
In the circumstances I am unable to make an award for loss of rent. That part of the claim is dismissed. Travel costs
The landlord also claimed travel costs from his home in Whangarei to the premises in Wellsford. The landlord has made a commercial decision to let a property in Wellsford while he lived in Whangarei. It was therefore inevitable that he would have costs associated with that decision. If the costs were awarded it would effectively penalise tenants for renting a property which is owned by people who do not live in the region. It is my view that this is not appropriate so that part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed.
Because Just Listed Limited As Agent For Huan Jerry Liu has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4472883 — net $14,995.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$188.02	Water rates
Repairs: Insurance excess	$8,120.00	Repairs: Insurance excess
Meth testing/Cleaning	$3,021.05	Meth testing/Cleaning
Repairs: Meth decontamination insurance excess	$2,400.00	Repairs: Meth decontamination insurance excess
Rubbish removal	$1,860.50	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$265.00	Lawns and Garden work
Exemplary damages - unlawful use	$1,200.00	Exemplary damages - unlawful use
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$14,995.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$14,995.01

Order

Karie Rochelle Adolph must pay Just Listed Limited As Agent For Huan Jerry Liu $14,995.01 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (5422406-003) to Just Listed Limited As Agent For Huan Jerry Liu immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.
A substituted service order is made whereby the tenant is treated as served by email to the email address on the tenancy agreement and application on 18 April 2024.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing. Background
The tenancy commenced on 15 March 2021 and ended on 14 September 2022.
This application was filed on 30 December 2022. Service
Two earlier hearings (2 September 2023 and 22 February 2024) were adjourned to allow for the landlord to provide an address for service for the tenant.
Section 91A(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 sets out the process required in situations such as this where the landlord has filed an application more than two months after termination of the tenancy.
The landlord attempted to locate the tenant by making enquiries with Work and Income NZ, the Police, a friend of the tenant and by engaging a Private Investigator.
I am satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made to locate the tenant.
On 29 September 2023 the landlord’s agent contacted Tenancy Services and provided a service address for the tenant. Unfortunately, an attempt to serve the tenant at that address was not carried out until 11 July 2024. By that date the tenant had left that address and service was unsuccessful.
The landlord and his agent attended todays hearing not knowing that an attempt had been made to serve the tenant, but that the attempt was unsuccessful.
I note that the tenant is a party to an application in the Tribunal concerning the address that was provided as the address for service. In those proceedings the tenant has used the email address which she also used for this tenancy.
I am satisfied that the tenant has been advised of this application and this hearing by email sent to her on several occasions since the application was filed. I therefore dispense with service on the tenant as set out in section 91A(2) and instead make an order for substituted service in accordance with section 91B(2)(b). Application
The landlord has applied for water rates, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

On the application the landlord applied for water rates totalling $428.33. At the hearing the landlord claimed $994.62.
The landlord has produced four water rates invoices. The total of those invoices after deducting the fixed fee is $188.02.
I am only able to award for water rates based on the invoices produced which is ordered.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: five doors damaged, multiple wall holes, damage to the aluminium front door, damaged stainless steel bench top, damaged fibro cement weather board, broken glass in garage window, kitchen cupboard broken, laundry tub pull-out hose damaged, garage roller door damaged. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord has claimed insurance for this damage and there are nine separate claims of insurance excess which is awarded totalling $8,120.00. Methamphetamine contamination
Prior to commencement of the tenancy the landlord arranged for methamphetamine testing at the premises. The test results show a composite result of 0.37μg per 100cm².
After the tenancy ended the landlord arranged for methamphetamine testing which showed a composite result of 81.80μg per 100cm². The landlord arranged for individual testing of the premises.
Inside the house the individual test results ranged from 4.72μg per 100cm² to
40μg per 100cm².
The Tribunal has previously found that damage occurs, and decontamination is necessary, when levels of methamphetamine contamination are above 15μg/100cm². (Full Circle Real Estate Limited v Piper 1 ) This is the level adopted 1 Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019] NZDC 4947 – CIV2018-009-2490 by the “Gluckman Report” dated 29 May 2018. The Gluckman Report concludes that there is no evidence of risk of harm from second or third hand exposure to methamphetamine residue measured at or less than 15μg/100cm² unless there is evidence to suggest that the premises have been used for manufacture.
Neither the Gluckman Report nor the previously used New Zealand Standard 2 , which recommended a level of 1.5μg/100cm², are embedded into law, they both represent guidelines and are not regulatory. The court in the Full Circle case considered whether the Tribunal was wrong to rely on the Gluckman Report instead of the New Zealand Standard and concluded that the Gluckman Report represented the current scientific knowledge on the risk to human health from methamphetamine contamination. Therefore, the Tribunal continues to adopt a level of 15μg/100cm² as a level that requires remediation for contamination.
The test results show that damage has occurred, and decontamination is necessary. After considering the evidence, I am satisfied that it is more probable than not that the tenant herself engaged in, or allowed, methamphetamine related activity.
The landlord claimed insurance for the decontamination. The tenant is responsible for the insurance excess totalling $2,400.00.
The landlord has claimed for the cost of testing for methamphetamine totalling $3.021.05. That is also awarded against the tenant. Exemplary damages
Just Listed Limited As Agent For Huan Jerry Liu claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using or allowing the premises to be used for illicit drug taking, namely methamphetamine.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It is unlawful to consume, smoke or otherwise use, any controlled drug. I am satisfied that the tenant has breached her obligations under the tenancy agreement and the RTA by breaching section 7(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. Schedule one of that Act classifies methamphetamine as a Class A controlled drug. 2 NZS 8510:2017³ (NZS)
The tenant has either used or allowed a controlled drug to be used at the premises during the tenancy as evidenced by the methamphetamine testing carried out by the landlord. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has proven that the tenant used, or permitted the use of, the premises for an unlawful purpose (the use of methamphetamine). This is a breach of the RTA and an unlawful act pursuant to s40(3A)(c) RTA.
I am satisfied that the methamphetamine use was intentional and that the tenant is legally responsible for it.
After taking into account the tenant’s intent (to use, or allow the use of, prohibited drugs inside rented premises), the effect on the landlord (significant inconvenience from testing, making an insurance claim, arranging for decontamination of the premises and taking these proceedings), the interests of the landlord (that their property not be implicated in unlawful activity that may damage it or reduce the ability to rent it out in the future) and the public interest (that tenants be discouraged from using premises for unlawful activity), I award $1,200.00 which is over half the maximum award because of the level of contamination and the certainty of use. Loss of rent
The landlord claimed for loss of rent due to the time taken to complete the decontamination and repairs due to the damage. The landlord advised that this cost was not available to him through his insurance policy. There are likely to be many factors affecting the delay in carrying out the repairs such as the limited availability of contractors in the area (as mentioned by the landlord) and the distance between the premises and where the landlord lives (also mentioned).
In these situations, recovery is limited to actual loss resulting from the breach that was reasonably foreseeable when the contract was made.
I am satisfied in this case that a reasonable person would foresee that the premises may not be able to be re-let immediately where this type of damage occurred requiring significant repair work. In addition, a landlord cannot expect that premises will always be re-let immediately after the end of a tenancy. A reasonable landlord would foresee in the ordinary course that there will be periods during which the premises are not available to be let for a variety of reasons, including maintenance and repairs, even if caused by the actions of a tenant.
In addition, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the tenant is solely responsible for the delay in carrying out the repairs. It is unfortunate that the landlord’s insurance policy did not cover this cost but that cannot be the fault of the tenant.
In the circumstances I am unable to make an award for loss of rent. That part of the claim is dismissed. Travel costs
The landlord also claimed travel costs from his home in Whangarei to the premises in Wellsford. The landlord has made a commercial decision to let a property in Wellsford while he lived in Whangarei. It was therefore inevitable that he would have costs associated with that decision. If the costs were awarded it would effectively penalise tenants for renting a property which is owned by people who do not live in the region. It is my view that this is not appropriate so that part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed.
Because Just Listed Limited As Agent For Huan Jerry Liu has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4472883 — Property damage at 20 Kelgary Place, Wellsford, Wellsford 0900

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4472883 — Property damage at 20 Kelgary Place, Wellsford, Wellsford 0900

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions