What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5034573?

The tribunal order states: Thuoc Say and Pharat Pheng (trustees of the PTS Family Trust) must pay

How much money was awarded in case 5034573?

Compensation: Failure to maintain co…: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to take reason…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5034573?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5034573?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11432767-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5034573?

The tribunal order states: Thuoc Say and Pharat Pheng (trustees of the PTS Family Trust) must pay

How much money was awarded in case 5034573?

Compensation: Failure to maintain co…: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to take reason…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5034573?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5034573?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11432767-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 8, 114 Maunu Road, Woodhill, Whangarei 0110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5034573 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5034573 — net $4,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain common area garden	$2,500.00	Failure to maintain common area garden
Compensation: Failure to take reasonable steps to prevent interference with tenant's use of car parking space	$1,000.00	Failure to take reasonable steps to prevent interference with tenant's use of car parking space
Compensation: Incorrect water rates invoices	$500.00	Incorrect water rates invoices
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	62. Mr Scott has been partially successful in this application and I will award him the filing fee.
Net award	$4,027.00
Bond	$800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,027.00

Order

Thuoc Say and Pharat Pheng (trustees of the PTS Family Trust) must pay Julian Scott $4,027.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $800.00 (5179954-024) to Julian Scott immediately.

Reasons

Background

The background to this application and to the related application 5034560 are set out in my adjournment order dated 4 December 2024.
The second hearing took place in Whangarei on 29 January 2025. Mr Scott represented himself and Mr Lloyd at the hearing. Ms Lemon attended on behalf of the landlords.
The landlords did not file a cross-application or any further evidence in response to the 4 December adjournment order. Failure to maintain common area garden
The property is a block of 9 units. Mr Scott’s unit has a small grassed area at the rear. Beyond that there is a common area that extends to a creek, which is the legal boundary of the property.
Mr Scott said that the previous owner maintained this common area very well. It was mostly grass, with large palms and small shrubs going down to the creek. This was a peaceful and enjoyable part of the property.
When the current owners purchased the property, maintenance of this area ceased. It quickly became overgrown with weeds, including vines that grew up and covered the palms and large weed trees such as flame trees and woolly nightshade. Most of the space turned into a dense ‘forest’ of weeds.
Mr Scott said that he frequently raised this issue with Ms Lemon.
He issued a 14-day breach notice on 22 March 2023.
In response to the breach notice, Ms Lemon arranged for a contractor to visit the property and give a quote for tidying up this area. The cost was substantial, including several thousand dollars to fell and remove the large flame tree alone.
No tree / weed removal was done, but a contractor began mowing the remaining grassed area.
The landlord is responsible for maintaining any common areas. This green space required maintenance by the landlord, just as much as a more ‘functional’ common area such as a driveway or a stairway does. The landlord’s failure to maintain the premises caused a loss of benefit for Mr Scott, and for every other tenant.
The loss of benefit is difficult to quantify in monetary terms.
Mr Scott’s claim seeks payment of 20% of the total rent for the period of the tenancy. Mr Scott’s tenancy lasted ten years. In arriving at that figure, Mr Scott researched the rent for other nearby properties that are similar size but do not have a garden area.
I acknowledge Mr Scott’s argument that the common area is a valuable amenity, but in thinking about the bundle of amenities that comprise a tenanted premises (warm dry living areas, heating, cooking, etc) I think that Mr Scott has over-estimated the value of this area, particularly considering that it is not part of the premises that are exclusively for Mr Scott’s use.
Balancing these considerations, I will award compensation of $2,500.00. Parking
Each unit has a carport.
Mr Scott said he was often unable to use his carport because other residents parked their cars outside of their units and not in their carports. When the residents opposite Mr Scott did this, there was insufficient room for him to manoeuvre in and out of his carport.
Mr Scott kept a detailed and comprehensive record of the occasions that this happened, supported by time-stamped photographs from his dash camera.
Mr Scott raised this issue many times with Ms Lemon. It is in Mr Scott’s breach notice dated 22 March 2023.
At that time the person who occupied the unit opposite Mr Scott was causing many issues with anti-social behaviour, the least concerning of which was inconsiderate parking. Ms Lemon took that person to the Tenancy Tribunal and terminated his tenancy.
Mr Scott said that he has continued to have parking problems with the new occupant of that unit.
Mr Scott acknowledged that he stopped raising the issue with Ms Lemon, but he said that Ms Lemon was aware that it was a continuing problem because when she visited she could see the tenants’ vehicles parked outside their units.
Ms Lemon said that: a. It is not possible for her to ‘police’ tenant parking. b. When Mr Scott raised the issue, she sent a letter to all tenants reminding them to use the carports. c. She took action to terminate tenancies when serious anti-social behaviour issues arose.
Tenants have a duty to not interfere with the reasonable peace comfort and privacy of their neighbours. 1 1 Section 40(2)(c) RTA
Landlords have a duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of their tenants interferes with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of their other tenants.
I acknowledge Ms Lemon’s argument that a landlord cannot (and should not) intervene in all squabbles / disputes between neighbouring tenants. However, landlords are legally required to intervene when the threshold of “unreasonable interference” with their tenant’s peace, comfort and privacy is met.
My finding is that this threshold was met in this instance. The actions of Mr Scott’s neighbours were a more than minor inconvenience. Their actions meant that he was unable to use his carport, an important amenity and part of the premises that he was paying rent to use.
This was not a one-off or infrequent incident. Mr Scott’s detailed evidence shows that it happened many times a week, most weeks.
Given that the other tenants’ actions amounted to a breach of a legal duty under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, Ms Lemon’s approach of occasionally reminding tenants about parking but generally leaving them to sort it out themselves was inadequate. The landlord is required to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent an interference with their tenant’s peace comfort and privacy.
In this instance an appropriate reasonable step would have been to issue breach notices to the tenants who were parking improperly. If the tenants failed to respond to those notices, the landlord could have brought an application seeking orders from the Tenancy Tribunal. Mr Scott provided more than enough evidence to assist the landlord with such an application.
Therefore I find that the landlord breached its duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure that their other tenants did not interfere with Mr Scott’s peace comfort and privacy by parking in such a way that they restricted his access to his carport.
Mr Scott seeks compensation totalling $6,325.14, representing 20% of the rent for the days where his records show that access to his carport was blocked.
I acknowledge the logic and precision of Mr Scott’s calculation of damages.
However, again in my view the total amount of compensation that he is seeking is disproportionate to the loss of amenity that he has suffered. I must also factor in that the landlord was not directly responsible for the interference with his peace comfort and privacy. Even if the landlord had taken all reasonable steps, Mr Scott would have suffered a loss of amenity for a period of time (probably months) while the landlord went through the process of issuing breach notices, allowing time for the tenants to change their behaviour, and going down the Tenancy Tribunal path if they failed to.
Balancing these factors, I will award compensation of $1,000.00. Water rates
Each of the units has a water meter.
Ms Lemon read the meters periodically and send the readings to the landlords. The landlords then issued invoices.
During the tenancy Mr Scott suspected that he and Mr Lloyd were not being charged correctly for water use.
Mr Scott investigated the issue thoroughly. He found that not only were the invoices inaccurate, they were based on “readings” that can only be described as fictitious.
Some of the more egregious examples are: a. Mr Scott’s meter was replaced with a new meter in November 2021. The new meter, of course, began with a reading of zero units. The invoices that Mr Scott received after that new meter was installed had readings that correlated with the number of units on the previous meter. For example, Mr Scott received an invoice on 21 May 2022 stating that the meter reading as at 7 March 2022 was 1329 units. This is clearly not possible. The landlord has not read the meter. They have taken the previous reading, added an arbitrary amount, and failed to remember that the old meter was no longer there. I note that for this March 2022 invoice the actual meter reading that Ms Lemon sent by text message to the landlord was accurate. b. Mr Lloyd received an invoice on 15 November 2022 which stated that the meter reading as at 14 October 2022 was 1222 units. Mr Scott took a photograph of the same meter on 20 March 2023. The reading was 1123, which is 100 units less than the “reading” carried out five months earlier.
Mr Scott is not seeking any reimbursement of overpaid water rates.
Mr Scott is seeking exemplary damages.
If there was any legal basis for an award of exemplary damages, I would certainly award them in this instance. Mr Scott’s evidence shows persuasively that the landlord’s water rates invoices were not just carelessly inaccurate, they were fraudulent.
However, the Tribunal may only award exemplary damages if a landlord or tenant has breached an obligation that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) declares to be an “unlawful act”. There are no unlawful acts specified in the RTA that apply to this sort of situation, and therefore no basis for me to make an award of exemplary damages.
I will make an award of compensation to Mr Scott for the countless hours that he spent investigating this issue and communicating with the landlord about it.
I will award $500.00. Retaliatory notice
The landlords issued termination notices to Mr Scott and Mr Lloyd on 24 May 2023.
On 20 June 2023 Mr Scott and Mr Lloyd filed applications with the Tenancy Tribunal, challenging the landlords’ termination notices.
In July 2023 I made orders setting aside the notices. The basis of my finding was that the information that was available to the landlord at that time did not evidence a genuine intention to carry out extensive repairs and renovations, which was the stated basis for the termination notice.
Mr Scott now seeks exemplary damages on the grounds that the notices were retaliatory. Mr Scott noted that part of my reasoning in the July 2023 decision was that it is difficult to know whether a landlord’s stated intention is genuine when the notice relates to things that are going to happen at a future time.
Mr Scott said that now that time has passed, it is very clear that the landlord never had any intention to repair or renovate the units. The landlord has taken absolutely no steps towards that work in the 18 months since the termination notices were issued.
Mr Scott argued that if the landlord was not motivated by a genuine intention to repair / renovate the premises, it is a reasonable inference that their actual intention was to remove Mr Scott and Mr Lloyd because Mr Scott persistently raised concerns about necessary maintenance, about the common area, and about the landlord’s inaccurate water invoices.
This is a persuasive argument. Again, if there was a legal basis for me to award exemplary damages in this instance, I would say that Mr Scott and Mr Lloyd are entitled to them.
The reasons why I cannot award exemplary damages are somewhat technical.
Firstly, the relevant section of the RTA was worded differently in 2023 than it is now. At that time, the section said that the Tribunal could make an order declaring that a termination notice was “of no effect” on the grounds that it was a retaliatory notice. The section said that: The giving of a notice terminating a tenancy is an unlawful act if the notice is declared under subsection (2) to be of no effect 2 2 Section 54(3) RTA, as at May 2023
Therefore, the Tribunal could only award exemplary damages if the Tribunal had set aside the notice on the grounds that it was retaliatory.
In this instance, I did not set aside the landlord’s notices to Mr Scott and Mr Lloyd on the grounds that they were retaliatory. I set them aside on other grounds.
The wording of this section changed on 30 January 2025. The Tribunal may now make an award of exemplary damages even if the Tribunal does not make an order setting aside the notice on the grounds that it is retalitatory.
In determining the rights, obligations, and remedies of the parties, the law that is relevant is the law that was in effect when the relevant events occurred, not when the matter is heard by the Court or Tribunal.
Secondly, section 109(2) RTA states that a party may not bring an application for exemplary damages more than 12 months after the date of the unlawful act. In this instance the 12-month limit passed in May 2024. This application was filed on 13 October 2024. Ironically, the passing of time that Mr Scott needed to support his argument about the landlord’s actual motivation, has worked against him in terms of his exemplary damages claim. Bond
The tenancy has ended. The landlord has not made any claim for costs. The tenant is entitled to a refund of the bond in full. Filing fee
Mr Scott has been partially successful in this application and I will award him the filing fee. 3

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5034573 — net $4,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Failure to maintain common area garden	$2,500.00	Failure to maintain common area garden
Compensation: Failure to take reasonable steps to prevent interference with tenant's use of car parking space	$1,000.00	Failure to take reasonable steps to prevent interference with tenant's use of car parking space
Compensation: Incorrect water rates invoices	$500.00	Incorrect water rates invoices
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	62. Mr Scott has been partially successful in this application and I will award him the filing fee.
Net award	$4,027.00
Bond	$800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,027.00

Order

Thuoc Say and Pharat Pheng (trustees of the PTS Family Trust) must pay Julian Scott $4,027.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $800.00 (5179954-024) to Julian Scott immediately.

Reasons

Background

The background to this application and to the related application 5034560 are set out in my adjournment order dated 4 December 2024.
The second hearing took place in Whangarei on 29 January 2025. Mr Scott represented himself and Mr Lloyd at the hearing. Ms Lemon attended on behalf of the landlords.
The landlords did not file a cross-application or any further evidence in response to the 4 December adjournment order. Failure to maintain common area garden
The property is a block of 9 units. Mr Scott’s unit has a small grassed area at the rear. Beyond that there is a common area that extends to a creek, which is the legal boundary of the property.
Mr Scott said that the previous owner maintained this common area very well. It was mostly grass, with large palms and small shrubs going down to the creek. This was a peaceful and enjoyable part of the property.
When the current owners purchased the property, maintenance of this area ceased. It quickly became overgrown with weeds, including vines that grew up and covered the palms and large weed trees such as flame trees and woolly nightshade. Most of the space turned into a dense ‘forest’ of weeds.
Mr Scott said that he frequently raised this issue with Ms Lemon.
He issued a 14-day breach notice on 22 March 2023.
In response to the breach notice, Ms Lemon arranged for a contractor to visit the property and give a quote for tidying up this area. The cost was substantial, including several thousand dollars to fell and remove the large flame tree alone.
No tree / weed removal was done, but a contractor began mowing the remaining grassed area.
The landlord is responsible for maintaining any common areas. This green space required maintenance by the landlord, just as much as a more ‘functional’ common area such as a driveway or a stairway does. The landlord’s failure to maintain the premises caused a loss of benefit for Mr Scott, and for every other tenant.
The loss of benefit is difficult to quantify in monetary terms.
Mr Scott’s claim seeks payment of 20% of the total rent for the period of the tenancy. Mr Scott’s tenancy lasted ten years. In arriving at that figure, Mr Scott researched the rent for other nearby properties that are similar size but do not have a garden area.
I acknowledge Mr Scott’s argument that the common area is a valuable amenity, but in thinking about the bundle of amenities that comprise a tenanted premises (warm dry living areas, heating, cooking, etc) I think that Mr Scott has over-estimated the value of this area, particularly considering that it is not part of the premises that are exclusively for Mr Scott’s use.
Balancing these considerations, I will award compensation of $2,500.00. Parking
Each unit has a carport.
Mr Scott said he was often unable to use his carport because other residents parked their cars outside of their units and not in their carports. When the residents opposite Mr Scott did this, there was insufficient room for him to manoeuvre in and out of his carport.
Mr Scott kept a detailed and comprehensive record of the occasions that this happened, supported by time-stamped photographs from his dash camera.
Mr Scott raised this issue many times with Ms Lemon. It is in Mr Scott’s breach notice dated 22 March 2023.
At that time the person who occupied the unit opposite Mr Scott was causing many issues with anti-social behaviour, the least concerning of which was inconsiderate parking. Ms Lemon took that person to the Tenancy Tribunal and terminated his tenancy.
Mr Scott said that he has continued to have parking problems with the new occupant of that unit.
Mr Scott acknowledged that he stopped raising the issue with Ms Lemon, but he said that Ms Lemon was aware that it was a continuing problem because when she visited she could see the tenants’ vehicles parked outside their units.
Ms Lemon said that: a. It is not possible for her to ‘police’ tenant parking. b. When Mr Scott raised the issue, she sent a letter to all tenants reminding them to use the carports. c. She took action to terminate tenancies when serious anti-social behaviour issues arose.
Tenants have a duty to not interfere with the reasonable peace comfort and privacy of their neighbours. 1 1 Section 40(2)(c) RTA
Landlords have a duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of their tenants interferes with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of their other tenants.
I acknowledge Ms Lemon’s argument that a landlord cannot (and should not) intervene in all squabbles / disputes between neighbouring tenants. However, landlords are legally required to intervene when the threshold of “unreasonable interference” with their tenant’s peace, comfort and privacy is met.
My finding is that this threshold was met in this instance. The actions of Mr Scott’s neighbours were a more than minor inconvenience. Their actions meant that he was unable to use his carport, an important amenity and part of the premises that he was paying rent to use.
This was not a one-off or infrequent incident. Mr Scott’s detailed evidence shows that it happened many times a week, most weeks.
Given that the other tenants’ actions amounted to a breach of a legal duty under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, Ms Lemon’s approach of occasionally reminding tenants about parking but generally leaving them to sort it out themselves was inadequate. The landlord is required to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent an interference with their tenant’s peace comfort and privacy.
In this instance an appropriate reasonable step would have been to issue breach notices to the tenants who were parking improperly. If the tenants failed to respond to those notices, the landlord could have brought an application seeking orders from the Tenancy Tribunal. Mr Scott provided more than enough evidence to assist the landlord with such an application.
Therefore I find that the landlord breached its duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure that their other tenants did not interfere with Mr Scott’s peace comfort and privacy by parking in such a way that they restricted his access to his carport.
Mr Scott seeks compensation totalling $6,325.14, representing 20% of the rent for the days where his records show that access to his carport was blocked.
I acknowledge the logic and precision of Mr Scott’s calculation of damages.
However, again in my view the total amount of compensation that he is seeking is disproportionate to the loss of amenity that he has suffered. I must also factor in that the landlord was not directly responsible for the interference with his peace comfort and privacy. Even if the landlord had taken all reasonable steps, Mr Scott would have suffered a loss of amenity for a period of time (probably months) while the landlord went through the process of issuing breach notices, allowing time for the tenants to change their behaviour, and going down the Tenancy Tribunal path if they failed to.
Balancing these factors, I will award compensation of $1,000.00. Water rates
Each of the units has a water meter.
Ms Lemon read the meters periodically and send the readings to the landlords. The landlords then issued invoices.
During the tenancy Mr Scott suspected that he and Mr Lloyd were not being charged correctly for water use.
Mr Scott investigated the issue thoroughly. He found that not only were the invoices inaccurate, they were based on “readings” that can only be described as fictitious.
Some of the more egregious examples are: a. Mr Scott’s meter was replaced with a new meter in November 2021. The new meter, of course, began with a reading of zero units. The invoices that Mr Scott received after that new meter was installed had readings that correlated with the number of units on the previous meter. For example, Mr Scott received an invoice on 21 May 2022 stating that the meter reading as at 7 March 2022 was 1329 units. This is clearly not possible. The landlord has not read the meter. They have taken the previous reading, added an arbitrary amount, and failed to remember that the old meter was no longer there. I note that for this March 2022 invoice the actual meter reading that Ms Lemon sent by text message to the landlord was accurate. b. Mr Lloyd received an invoice on 15 November 2022 which stated that the meter reading as at 14 October 2022 was 1222 units. Mr Scott took a photograph of the same meter on 20 March 2023. The reading was 1123, which is 100 units less than the “reading” carried out five months earlier.
Mr Scott is not seeking any reimbursement of overpaid water rates.
Mr Scott is seeking exemplary damages.
If there was any legal basis for an award of exemplary damages, I would certainly award them in this instance. Mr Scott’s evidence shows persuasively that the landlord’s water rates invoices were not just carelessly inaccurate, they were fraudulent.
However, the Tribunal may only award exemplary damages if a landlord or tenant has breached an obligation that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) declares to be an “unlawful act”. There are no unlawful acts specified in the RTA that apply to this sort of situation, and therefore no basis for me to make an award of exemplary damages.
I will make an award of compensation to Mr Scott for the countless hours that he spent investigating this issue and communicating with the landlord about it.
I will award $500.00. Retaliatory notice
The landlords issued termination notices to Mr Scott and Mr Lloyd on 24 May 2023.
On 20 June 2023 Mr Scott and Mr Lloyd filed applications with the Tenancy Tribunal, challenging the landlords’ termination notices.
In July 2023 I made orders setting aside the notices. The basis of my finding was that the information that was available to the landlord at that time did not evidence a genuine intention to carry out extensive repairs and renovations, which was the stated basis for the termination notice.
Mr Scott now seeks exemplary damages on the grounds that the notices were retaliatory. Mr Scott noted that part of my reasoning in the July 2023 decision was that it is difficult to know whether a landlord’s stated intention is genuine when the notice relates to things that are going to happen at a future time.
Mr Scott said that now that time has passed, it is very clear that the landlord never had any intention to repair or renovate the units. The landlord has taken absolutely no steps towards that work in the 18 months since the termination notices were issued.
Mr Scott argued that if the landlord was not motivated by a genuine intention to repair / renovate the premises, it is a reasonable inference that their actual intention was to remove Mr Scott and Mr Lloyd because Mr Scott persistently raised concerns about necessary maintenance, about the common area, and about the landlord’s inaccurate water invoices.
This is a persuasive argument. Again, if there was a legal basis for me to award exemplary damages in this instance, I would say that Mr Scott and Mr Lloyd are entitled to them.
The reasons why I cannot award exemplary damages are somewhat technical.
Firstly, the relevant section of the RTA was worded differently in 2023 than it is now. At that time, the section said that the Tribunal could make an order declaring that a termination notice was “of no effect” on the grounds that it was a retaliatory notice. The section said that: The giving of a notice terminating a tenancy is an unlawful act if the notice is declared under subsection (2) to be of no effect 2 2 Section 54(3) RTA, as at May 2023
Therefore, the Tribunal could only award exemplary damages if the Tribunal had set aside the notice on the grounds that it was retaliatory.
In this instance, I did not set aside the landlord’s notices to Mr Scott and Mr Lloyd on the grounds that they were retaliatory. I set them aside on other grounds.
The wording of this section changed on 30 January 2025. The Tribunal may now make an award of exemplary damages even if the Tribunal does not make an order setting aside the notice on the grounds that it is retalitatory.
In determining the rights, obligations, and remedies of the parties, the law that is relevant is the law that was in effect when the relevant events occurred, not when the matter is heard by the Court or Tribunal.
Secondly, section 109(2) RTA states that a party may not bring an application for exemplary damages more than 12 months after the date of the unlawful act. In this instance the 12-month limit passed in May 2024. This application was filed on 13 October 2024. Ironically, the passing of time that Mr Scott needed to support his argument about the landlord’s actual motivation, has worked against him in terms of his exemplary damages claim. Bond
The tenancy has ended. The landlord has not made any claim for costs. The tenant is entitled to a refund of the bond in full. Filing fee
Mr Scott has been partially successful in this application and I will award him the filing fee. 3

Tenancy Tribunal case 5034573 — State of repair at Flat 8, 114 Maunu Road, Woodhill, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5034573 — State of repair at Flat 8, 114 Maunu Road, Woodhill, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions