What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4952634?

The tribunal order states: Jordyn Tolua must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agent for Robert Gustaaf

How much money was awarded in case 4952634?

Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Bench Top: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord; Entrance Tile: $429.81 awarded to landlord; Fence: $740.60 awarded to landlord; Fridge: $356.50 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Cabinetry: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord; Laminate Flooring: $1,092.50 awarded to landlord; Lift: $347.42 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seat: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Heat Pump Remotes: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $675.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4952634?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4952634?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10970478-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4952634?

The tribunal order states: Jordyn Tolua must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agent for Robert Gustaaf

How much money was awarded in case 4952634?

Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Bench Top: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord; Entrance Tile: $429.81 awarded to landlord; Fence: $740.60 awarded to landlord; Fridge: $356.50 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Cabinetry: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord; Laminate Flooring: $1,092.50 awarded to landlord; Lift: $347.42 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seat: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Heat Pump Remotes: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $675.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4952634?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4952634?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10970478-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14A Galbraith Avenue, Beerescourt, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4952634 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4952634 — net $2,899.46 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$80.00	Carpet Cleaning
Replace heat pump remotes	$100.00	Replace heat pump remotes
Repairs: toilet seat	$230.00	Repairs: toilet seat
Repairs: laminate flooring	$1,092.50	Repairs: laminate flooring
Repairs: fridge	$356.50	Repairs: fridge
Repairs: kitchen cabinetry	$1,250.00	Repairs: kitchen cabinetry
Repairs: Entrance tile	$429.81	Repairs: Entrance tile
Repairs: lift	$347.42	Repairs: lift
Repairs: bench top	$1,250.00	Repairs: bench top
Window repairs: bedroom three	$675.63	Window repairs: bedroom three
Repairs: fence	$740.60	Repairs: fence
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,899.46
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,899.46

Order

Jordyn Tolua must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agent for Robert Gustaaf De Leeuw $2,899.46 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,680.00 (6415669-002) to Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agent for Robert Gustaaf De Leeuw immediately.

Reasons

Mr Waugh and Ms Slight appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 10 May 2022 and ended on 05 June 2024. The landlord’s application was filed on 26 July 2024.
The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to two heat pump remotes, wooden laminate flooring, a set of three drawers in the kitchen, fridge, an exterior tile in the entrance way, the internal lift, the kitchen benchtop, bedroom windows, and fence.
The landlord also claims that the tenant is responsible for staining to the carpet in the lounge and two bedrooms.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

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

The property was built in 2019. Mr Waugh describes it as “a high-end property.” It consists of two stories, four bedrooms (three upstairs and one downstairs), a large open plan kitchen / dining / living area, an ensuite bathroom, a main bathroom, a separate downstairs toilet, a family room, laundry, and a double internal garage. The tenant is the second occupant, following the first who occupied from 2019 to May 2022. Carpet stains.
The landlord is claiming $80.00 to remove stains to the carpet in the lounge, downstairs bedroom, and master bedroom.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean, this includes any carpet.
The landlord has produced pre tenancy and end of tenancy inspection reports both of which contain photographs of the carpet. The end of tenancy photographs shows a small pink stain in both the lounge and the downstairs bedroom. In the master bedroom there are two larger darker stains. These stains were not present in the pre tenancy photographs.
I am satisfied that these stains occurred during the tenancy. The tenant is liable. The amount claimed for stain removal is reasonable and awarded in full. Is the tenant responsible for damage.
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act 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) of the Act. In this case the landlord has insurance for careless damage with an excess of $1,250.00 per claim.
Tenants are liable for the full 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) of the Act.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Heat pump remotes.
The tenant was provided with two heat pump remotes, one for the lounge and one for the heat pump in the master bedroom. The pre tenancy report shows both remotes in good condition. The landlord states the heat pumps and remotes were new in 2019. The end of tenancy photographs shows the front sliding covers to both remotes missing. The landlord states that they could not be repaired and is claiming $100.00 to replace them. Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the damage to the remotes has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability. The amount ordered is proved. Wooden laminate flooring
The entrance and a large part of the downstairs open plan kitchen / dining/ lounge area have wooden laminate flooring. Pre tenancy photographs show the flooring to be in a good condition with no damage. The end of tenancy photographs show damage consisting of small cuts and dents. Mr Waugh states that they have not been caused by shoes, which the landlord would consider fair wear and tear, but are consistent with a sharp or heavy object being repeatedly dropped on the floor. Mr Waugh submits that laminate floors are typically hard wearing and that the damage in this case is more than fair wear and tear. Mr Waugh states that the floor comes in sections and that only the most affected areas were replaced.
Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability. The floor was three years old at the commencement of the tenancy and in good condition. Only the damaged areas were replaced. There is no deduction made for betterment. The amount claimed is awarded. Drawers in the kitchen.
The kitchen has an island bench, which contains a set of three self-closing drawers including a pull-out waste bin. Ms Slight states that she checked all of the drawers at the start of the tenancy and that they were all functioning. The pre tenancy photographs do not show any damage. The end of tenancy photographs show that the drawers have been bent off their rails, damaging the opening mechanism, and the bin. The landlord claims this damage is consistent with considerable force being applied to the drawers while they were open. They could not be repaired and were replaced. An insurance claim was accepted. The landlord is claiming the excess on the basis that the damage was more likely caused by carelessness.
I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability. I accept the landlord’s submission that the damage was likely the result of carelessness. The cabinetry was three years old at the start of the tenancy and in good condition. I award the excess which is less than the actual cost of repair. There is no deduction made for betterment. Exterior tile in the entrance way.
There are large tiles forming a path leading from the tarseal driveway to the front door. The landlord has produced a photograph on the tile closest the driveway. The edge nearest the driveway has been cracked away. The tile is shown undamaged at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord states that the damage is consistent with having been run over by a car, which they submit is an act of carelessness.
I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability. I accept the landlord’s submission that the damage was likely the result of carelessness. The amount ordered is proved. Fridge
The property was supplied with a double door upright fridge / freezer. The pre tenancy inspection report shows the fridge / freezer in an undamaged condition. There is a rubber flap between the double doors shown in the pre tenancy inspection photographs. The end of tenancy photographs show that the flap has been removed. Mr Waugh states that it was ripped off. One of the freezer bins has been smashed in, and one of the fridge door racks has been damaged.
The cost of repairing the fridge was $435.85, which includes $79.35 to replace the water filter. While I am satisfied that the damage to the rubber flap, drawer, and rack has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, there is insufficient evidence that the tenant is also liable for the water filter. Accordingly, I reduce the amount awarded by $79.35. Internal lift
There is a lift from the ground to first floor. The door and door handle are crucial to the operation of the lift. The landlord has produced a photograph showing the lift door and handles on both floors in good condition. The door and the handles are undamaged. The end of tenancy photograph shows the first-floor door handle laying on the floor. Mr Waugh states that the handle was broken and unable to be repaired and required replacing.
I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability. kitchen bench top
The kitchen benchtop was damaged during the tenancy. The bench top is made of stone. In February 2024, the tenant reported that the bench top had been damaged, claiming that they placed a large crockpot on a board on the bench, which “went straight through.” A photograph produced shows a large hole in the bench. An insurance claim was accepted, and the bench was replaced for $6,052.45. The landlord rejects the tenants claim that the damage may have been fair wear and tear, arguing that placing a crockpot, even a large one, on the bench would not have caused the damage. The landlord argues that the damage is consistent with a heavy object being dropped on the bench, which they argue was an act of carelessness.
I accept the landlord’s submission. The damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. I am satisfied that the damage is more likely than not the result of carelessness. The excess is awarded. Bedroom windows
During the tenancy, the landlord replaced two second story windows in one of the bedrooms, which had been damaged. The tenant reported that the damage had occurred while “moving pillows.” Mr Waugh states that the windows are “ecofriendly and double glazed” offering enhanced thermal qualities and are stronger than regular glass. The landlord rejected the tenant’s suggestion that the damage may have been the result of fair wear and tear and informed the tenant that they would be liable.
Photographs show that the damage is consistent with having been caused by a force greater than a pillow. I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability, and the amount claimed is awarded. Fence.
There is a 1.8 metre fence opposite the double garage. Photographs of the fence taken at the commencement of the tenancy show no damage. Photographs taken at the end show damage in the form of an L - shaped crack halfway up the fence. The fence is made from fibrolite sheets, each measuring 1.2m x 1.8m. The damaged panel was replaced.
I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability, and the amount claimed is awarded. Costs
As the landlord has been substantially successful the Tribunal orders reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression.
No suppression orders are sought.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4952634 — net $2,899.46 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$80.00	Carpet Cleaning
Replace heat pump remotes	$100.00	Replace heat pump remotes
Repairs: toilet seat	$230.00	Repairs: toilet seat
Repairs: laminate flooring	$1,092.50	Repairs: laminate flooring
Repairs: fridge	$356.50	Repairs: fridge
Repairs: kitchen cabinetry	$1,250.00	Repairs: kitchen cabinetry
Repairs: Entrance tile	$429.81	Repairs: Entrance tile
Repairs: lift	$347.42	Repairs: lift
Repairs: bench top	$1,250.00	Repairs: bench top
Window repairs: bedroom three	$675.63	Window repairs: bedroom three
Repairs: fence	$740.60	Repairs: fence
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,899.46
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,899.46

Order

Jordyn Tolua must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agent for Robert Gustaaf De Leeuw $2,899.46 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,680.00 (6415669-002) to Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agent for Robert Gustaaf De Leeuw immediately.

Reasons

Mr Waugh and Ms Slight appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 10 May 2022 and ended on 05 June 2024. The landlord’s application was filed on 26 July 2024.
The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to two heat pump remotes, wooden laminate flooring, a set of three drawers in the kitchen, fridge, an exterior tile in the entrance way, the internal lift, the kitchen benchtop, bedroom windows, and fence.
The landlord also claims that the tenant is responsible for staining to the carpet in the lounge and two bedrooms.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

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

The property was built in 2019. Mr Waugh describes it as “a high-end property.” It consists of two stories, four bedrooms (three upstairs and one downstairs), a large open plan kitchen / dining / living area, an ensuite bathroom, a main bathroom, a separate downstairs toilet, a family room, laundry, and a double internal garage. The tenant is the second occupant, following the first who occupied from 2019 to May 2022. Carpet stains.
The landlord is claiming $80.00 to remove stains to the carpet in the lounge, downstairs bedroom, and master bedroom.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean, this includes any carpet.
The landlord has produced pre tenancy and end of tenancy inspection reports both of which contain photographs of the carpet. The end of tenancy photographs shows a small pink stain in both the lounge and the downstairs bedroom. In the master bedroom there are two larger darker stains. These stains were not present in the pre tenancy photographs.
I am satisfied that these stains occurred during the tenancy. The tenant is liable. The amount claimed for stain removal is reasonable and awarded in full. Is the tenant responsible for damage.
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act 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) of the Act. In this case the landlord has insurance for careless damage with an excess of $1,250.00 per claim.
Tenants are liable for the full 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) of the Act.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Heat pump remotes.
The tenant was provided with two heat pump remotes, one for the lounge and one for the heat pump in the master bedroom. The pre tenancy report shows both remotes in good condition. The landlord states the heat pumps and remotes were new in 2019. The end of tenancy photographs shows the front sliding covers to both remotes missing. The landlord states that they could not be repaired and is claiming $100.00 to replace them. Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the damage to the remotes has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability. The amount ordered is proved. Wooden laminate flooring
The entrance and a large part of the downstairs open plan kitchen / dining/ lounge area have wooden laminate flooring. Pre tenancy photographs show the flooring to be in a good condition with no damage. The end of tenancy photographs show damage consisting of small cuts and dents. Mr Waugh states that they have not been caused by shoes, which the landlord would consider fair wear and tear, but are consistent with a sharp or heavy object being repeatedly dropped on the floor. Mr Waugh submits that laminate floors are typically hard wearing and that the damage in this case is more than fair wear and tear. Mr Waugh states that the floor comes in sections and that only the most affected areas were replaced.
Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability. The floor was three years old at the commencement of the tenancy and in good condition. Only the damaged areas were replaced. There is no deduction made for betterment. The amount claimed is awarded. Drawers in the kitchen.
The kitchen has an island bench, which contains a set of three self-closing drawers including a pull-out waste bin. Ms Slight states that she checked all of the drawers at the start of the tenancy and that they were all functioning. The pre tenancy photographs do not show any damage. The end of tenancy photographs show that the drawers have been bent off their rails, damaging the opening mechanism, and the bin. The landlord claims this damage is consistent with considerable force being applied to the drawers while they were open. They could not be repaired and were replaced. An insurance claim was accepted. The landlord is claiming the excess on the basis that the damage was more likely caused by carelessness.
I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability. I accept the landlord’s submission that the damage was likely the result of carelessness. The cabinetry was three years old at the start of the tenancy and in good condition. I award the excess which is less than the actual cost of repair. There is no deduction made for betterment. Exterior tile in the entrance way.
There are large tiles forming a path leading from the tarseal driveway to the front door. The landlord has produced a photograph on the tile closest the driveway. The edge nearest the driveway has been cracked away. The tile is shown undamaged at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord states that the damage is consistent with having been run over by a car, which they submit is an act of carelessness.
I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability. I accept the landlord’s submission that the damage was likely the result of carelessness. The amount ordered is proved. Fridge
The property was supplied with a double door upright fridge / freezer. The pre tenancy inspection report shows the fridge / freezer in an undamaged condition. There is a rubber flap between the double doors shown in the pre tenancy inspection photographs. The end of tenancy photographs show that the flap has been removed. Mr Waugh states that it was ripped off. One of the freezer bins has been smashed in, and one of the fridge door racks has been damaged.
The cost of repairing the fridge was $435.85, which includes $79.35 to replace the water filter. While I am satisfied that the damage to the rubber flap, drawer, and rack has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, there is insufficient evidence that the tenant is also liable for the water filter. Accordingly, I reduce the amount awarded by $79.35. Internal lift
There is a lift from the ground to first floor. The door and door handle are crucial to the operation of the lift. The landlord has produced a photograph showing the lift door and handles on both floors in good condition. The door and the handles are undamaged. The end of tenancy photograph shows the first-floor door handle laying on the floor. Mr Waugh states that the handle was broken and unable to be repaired and required replacing.
I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability. kitchen bench top
The kitchen benchtop was damaged during the tenancy. The bench top is made of stone. In February 2024, the tenant reported that the bench top had been damaged, claiming that they placed a large crockpot on a board on the bench, which “went straight through.” A photograph produced shows a large hole in the bench. An insurance claim was accepted, and the bench was replaced for $6,052.45. The landlord rejects the tenants claim that the damage may have been fair wear and tear, arguing that placing a crockpot, even a large one, on the bench would not have caused the damage. The landlord argues that the damage is consistent with a heavy object being dropped on the bench, which they argue was an act of carelessness.
I accept the landlord’s submission. The damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. I am satisfied that the damage is more likely than not the result of carelessness. The excess is awarded. Bedroom windows
During the tenancy, the landlord replaced two second story windows in one of the bedrooms, which had been damaged. The tenant reported that the damage had occurred while “moving pillows.” Mr Waugh states that the windows are “ecofriendly and double glazed” offering enhanced thermal qualities and are stronger than regular glass. The landlord rejected the tenant’s suggestion that the damage may have been the result of fair wear and tear and informed the tenant that they would be liable.
Photographs show that the damage is consistent with having been caused by a force greater than a pillow. I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability, and the amount claimed is awarded. Fence.
There is a 1.8 metre fence opposite the double garage. Photographs of the fence taken at the commencement of the tenancy show no damage. Photographs taken at the end show damage in the form of an L - shaped crack halfway up the fence. The fence is made from fibrolite sheets, each measuring 1.2m x 1.8m. The damaged panel was replaced.
I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability, and the amount claimed is awarded. Costs
As the landlord has been substantially successful the Tribunal orders reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression.
No suppression orders are sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4952634 — Property damage at 14A Galbraith Avenue, Beerescourt, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4952634 — Property damage at 14A Galbraith Avenue, Beerescourt, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions