How much money was awarded in case 4672909?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Payment Received: $1,297.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,142.15 awarded to landlord; Wall: $110.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4672909?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4672909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10833871-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4672909?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Payment Received: $1,297.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,142.15 awarded to landlord; Wall: $110.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4672909?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4672909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10833871-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 302, 41 Hopper Street, Mount Cook, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 4672909 — Rent arrears

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4672909?

The tribunal order states: This order replaces the Tribunal order made on 12 December 2023 under this

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4672909 — net $1,327.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (50% of the rent owed for 1.7.23 -8.8.23	$1,142.15		Rent arrears (50% of the rent owed for 1.7.23 -8.8.23
Carpet Cleaning	$207.00		Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$150.00		Cleaning
Repairs: wall	$110.00		Repairs: wall
Bond received		$1,640.00	Bond received
Payment received		$1,297.00	Payment received
Total award	$1,609.15	$2,937.00
Net award		$1,327.85
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,327.85

This order replaces the Tribunal order made on 12 December 2023 under this application as it relates to rent arrears only.

The Tribunal order made on 12 December 2023 under this application remains in force regarding the orders for carpet cleaning, cleaning, and wall repairs

Taylor Property Plus (2006) Limited As Agent For Sharella Holdings Limited must pay Lu Liu $1,327.85 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 12 December 2023 under this application, to the extent that the previous order remains in force.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Mr Taylor and Ms Bacica representing the landlord in their capacity as the appointed property managers. References in this decision to the landlord includes the property managers who conducted all the relevant communications with the tenant, Mr Liu.

This is a partial rehearing of the Tribunal’s decision dated 12 December 2023 (“the December decision”) as it relates to the tenant’s claim for misrepresentation only, and damages for misrepresentation by way of the rent payable. The awards made in the December decision for cleaning, carpet cleaning, and wall repairs remain in force. Background facts and evidence

The tenant signed a fixed term tenancy agreement for the premises commencing 16 March 2022 and ending 16 March 2023. In early January 2023, the landlord emailed the tenant to check whether he intended to continue the tenancy beyond the fixed term. After an exchange of emails, the parties signed a renewal of the tenancy agreement for a further fixed term from 17 March 2023 to 1 September 2023. While the new contract signed by the parties was called “Renewal of a Fixed Term Tenancy Agreement”, and I refer to it as “the renewal” in this decision, it is in my view an agreement to extend the fixed term because other than the tenancy end date, the parties to the agreement and all other terms of the first tenancy agreement remained the same. However, the parties signed a new contract to record the extension.

The tenant filed an application to terminate the renewed tenancy agreement to an earlier date because he alleged that the landlord misrepresented the options available to him for continuing the tenancy. He claims this induced him to enter the renewal rather than allow the tenancy to become periodic. He has already vacated the tenancy and under the December decision he was ordered to pay rent up to 8 August 2023 (the date that the Tribunal found that the landlord took possession and the tenancy ended). I agree that the tenancy ended on 8 August 2023 for the reasons given in the December decision. The tenant claims that he should only be liable for rent up to 30 June 2023 to compensate for the loss suffered because of the landlord’s misrepresentation.

The crucial emails from the landlord are as follows: Email sent on 10 January 2023 “....As your lease is soon to end, we would like to discuss your intentions for the property beyond the expiry of your current fixed term tenancy. At present your fixed term lease at......expires on 16/3/2023. We are currently in touch with your property owner and have proposed draft terms of an additional 12-month fixed term at a rental amount of $410 per week. Could you please advise us in writing before 17/01/2023 if you intend to sign a 12- month fixed lease based on these draft terms. We will send you an updated Tenancy Agreement to review.............. If we have not heard from you by the above date the above proposal may be retracted by your owner, and other options will need to be considered.............. Please feel free to contact us, should you wish to discuss this further, otherwise we look forward to hearing from you.” Follow up email on 25 January 2023 “This is just a friendly reminder that we were expecting a decision on your lease intentions by 17/01/2023, as per previous email. If you could please advise us in writing if you would like to accept the draft new tenancy terms, or whether you will be vacating on the current lease end date. We will then send you an updated Tenancy Agreement. If we have not heard from you by the 27/01/2023, then we will assume your lease is to be ending at the current contract date and we will make the necessary arrangements for re-letting the property. Please feel free to contact us, should you wish to discuss this further, otherwise we look forward to hearing from you.”

The tenant did not discuss his options with the landlord and simply replied by email on 1 February stating: “Thanks for reminding. Can we extend the contract to end of September.” After a communication from the landlord on a separate issue, he also sent an email on 2 February stating: “....Are we extending the contract?” to which the landlord replied by email on 7 February: “Yes we can extend to end of September-I will send you a lease renewal for you to sign.” The tenant replied on 7 February: “Thanks-I mean to extend to end of Aug” to which the landlord also agreed by email on 8 February. The lease renewal was subsequently signed.

The tenant claims that the landlord’s misrepresentation was failing to refer to the default position outlined in section 60A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) which says: 60A Fixed-term tenancy becomes periodic unless contrary notice given (1) On the expiry of a fixed-term tenancy of more than 90 days, the tenancy continues as a periodic tenancy with the same terms as the terms contained in the expired tenancy so far as those terms are consistent with a periodic tenancy. (2) However, the tenancy does not continue as a periodic tenancy if,— (a) before the expiry, the parties renew or extend the existing tenancy agreement; or (b) before the expiry, the parties agree not to continue with the tenancy; or (c) at least 28 days before the expiry, the tenant gives the landlord written notice of the tenant’s intention not to continue with the tenancy; or (d) before the expiry, a party gives notice as mentioned in any of section 50(1)(a) to (b) that terminates the tenancy on or before the expiry or that would do if the tenancy were already periodic.

I find that the email dated 10 January 2023 was merely a proposal to open the dialogue on the issue and did not contain any misrepresentations. However, the email dated 25 January 2023 is different. The landlord suggested that there were only two options available to the tenant—either sign a new fixed term tenancy or vacate at the end of the term on 16 March. While this was the correct position prior to the amendments to the RTA introduced under the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2020, it was not correct for fixed term tenancies commencing after 11 February 2021, when the amendment came into force. Section 60A specifically removed the previous right of landlords to end a tenancy upon the expiry of the term. The landlord’s emails also did not mention that if the parties did not mutually agree to renew, extend or end the tenancy, and the tenant did not wish to unilaterally give 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy on expiry of the term, it would roll over into a periodic tenancy terminable by the tenant on 28 days’ notice.

On 25 May 2023, the tenant emailed the landlord advising: “Due to change of plan, I might move out earlier than the agreed date. I haven’t made sure which day to move out. I wonder how many days should I notice you in advance?” The landlord responded advising the tenant of their policy for breaking a fixed term tenancy early, including advising him that he would be liable for rent until a new tenant was found and for the landlord’s reasonable costs of finding a new tenant (the break lease policy).

On 30 May 2023, the tenant confirmed by email that he wished to end the tenancy and move out by 30 June 2023. However, he says that he was surprised by the break lease policy and didn’t expect to incur those costs.

The tenant then researched the law and discovered that he could have opted to continue the tenancy as a periodic tenancy when the first fixed term expired on 16 March 2023. He believes that the landlord deliberately misled him as to his rights. He later emailed the landlord requesting that they agree to treat his termination notice as notice to end a periodic tenancy, noting that he had only ever asked to “extend” the contract in communications with the landlord before the renewal agreement was signed. He had not understood that he could not give notice to end a fixed term tenancy before the expiry date.

The tenants evidence regarding his circumstances and motivations may be summarised as follows: a. He was a new immigrant to NZ from China and when he first entered this tenancy in March 2022 he had just applied for a Resident Visa. This was expected to take 12 months to issue and was in fact issued on 31 March 2023. b. Throughout the tenancy, the tenant was researching the property market as it was his intention to purchase a house as soon as his resident visa was approved. As a migrant to NZ, he could not buy a property until he obtained a resident visa. He provided evidence that he had signed up to a Trade Me property newsletter and once his resident visa was issued, he began actively looking for a house to purchase; c. The tenant confirmed that he did not seek any advice about residential tenancies prior to signing the first tenancy agreement in March 2022 and didn’t think to do so. He says he did not know the difference between a periodic and fixed term tenancy. He thought the “extension” he had negotiated allowed him to give notice to end the tenancy; d. He acknowledged that his employment contract was ending in August 2023, so that was part of the reason for making sure the tenancy was extended to that date; e. Had he known that he could have chosen to continue the tenancy as a periodic tenancy, he would have done so because it would have given him the flexibility he required, given his intention and actions taken to purchase a property once his resident visa was approved; f. The tenant says the emails from the landlord asking about his lease intentions put a lot of pressure on him to respond with a decision by their deadlines. He thought if he didn’t sign another agreement, the landlord would retract their offer and rent the property to someone else; g. The tenant found a property to purchase and the agreement to purchase was unconditional as of 17 May 2023. On 25 May he first emailed the landlord about giving notice to end the tenancy. The settlement date was 26 June 2023. He could not explain when asked, why he did not make sure that the settlement date fitted in with the end date on the tenancy agreement.

The landlord’s evidence and submissions may be summarised as follows: a. The tenant never told the landlord that he had purchased a house and nor was it mentioned at the first hearing held before another adjudicator regarding this dispute. The landlord says that the tenant misled everyone about his reasons for ending the fixed term tenancy, suggesting he lacks credibility. (The tenant says he just didn’t want the landlord to know he had purchased a house); b. When the initial lease was signed the landlord provided the tenant with information about the RTA and says that Tenancy Services contact details for information was also provided on the Bond Lodgement form. However, the landlord was unable to confirm what RTA information exactly they provided. They did not produce any documentary advice that was provided to the tenant. The Bond lodgement form refers to the Tenancy Services website for information on the reverse side of the form; c. In emails, the landlord specifically stated that the tenant could contact them to discuss things further and he did not do so; d. The landlord says that the earlier email of 10 January (which I find does not contain a misrepresentation) was attached to the later 25 January email and is part of an email trail which should be read together. They argue that the emails amount to an offer and there could have been multiple outcomes. The process itself and time given allowed the tenant to obtain advice and discuss options with the landlord; e. The tenant is the one who asked for an extension to the end of September, then to the end of the August. They believe, therefore, that he knew that he could negotiate and wasn’t ignorant of his rights; f. The tenant asked for a term of 5.5 months because it fitted in with the tenants’ work contract. They believe he understood the nature of a fixed term tenancy; g. The tenant could have negotiated a settlement date for his house purchase in line with the tenancy end date, but he did not. He only advised the landlord of wanting to vacate after the purchase had gone unconditional. Misrepresentation

Section 78(1)(g) RTA provides that the Tribunal may make an order varying, or setting aside an agreement where it appears to the Tribunal that it has been induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake. Section 78(1)(h) RTA also enables the Tribunal to make any other order that the High Court or the District Court may make under any enactment or rule of law relating to contracts.

The law regarding misrepresentation is now largely codified in sections 35 and 37 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA), although the common law remains relevant. Under s35 CCLA, if a party (party A) to a contract has been induced to enter it by a misrepresentation, whether innocent or fraudulent, made by another party (part B) to the contract, party A is entitled to damages from that party B in the same manner and to the same extent as if the representation were a term of the contract that has been broken.

The representation must be one of fact, not opinion. The representation must be false, and it must relate to a matter of present or past facts, including “half- truths”, not one which relates to the future. See the commentary in Gault on Commercial Law 1 and the Court of Appeal decision in Savill v NZI Finance Ltd. 2 Discussion and findings

I have carefully considered the emails sent by the landlord to the tenant in January 2023. The email dated 25 January is of particular concern as it contains the statements: “.....please advise us in writing if you would like to accept the draft new tenancy terms, or whether you will be vacating on the current lease end date ..............If we have not heard from you by ........... then we will assume your lease is to be ending at the current contract date and we will make the necessary arrangements for re-letting the property.” I find that this is a false statement about the legal rights available to the parties and the options available to the tenant under s60A RTA at the time. It is false to assert that the landlord can re-let the property if they do not hear from the tenant. The property managers in this case knew (or are deemed to know) that they cannot relet the property if they don’t hear from the tenant. In that event, the tenancy would become periodic. I am also satisfied that they misrepresented the options available to the tenant by suggesting he only had two options to consider. They omitted to mention the third option, which was to do nothing so that the tenancy became periodic.

The landlord is not obliged to advise the tenant on his legal options under the RTA. Therefore, the question is whether there can be an implied misrepresentation of the law in circumstances where the tenant did not seek his own advice about the RTA, and in circumstances where that information is freely available, for example, on the Tenancy Services website.

In the High court case of Bartley v Beale, 3 Mr Bartley purchased a property from Mr Beale advertised as a three-bedroom property with the third bedroom located in the basement. It was set up as a bedroom when he viewed it. Mr Beale had in turn purchased the property on the same basis. In fact a previous owner had converted the basement to a bedroom some years prior. After settling the purchase, Mr Bartley received a requested LIM report from the local authority and discovered that from a legal viewpoint the basement room was not suitable for use as a bedroom in its existing state. The obstacles were to be found in the Council by laws which adopted a model Building Code. The effect of the code was that to qualify as a “habitable room” a bedroom would have to have a window to the exterior, and a minimum stud height of 2.4m. The basement room only had an internal window which opened into the adjacent 1 Gault on Commercial Law (online looseleaf ed, Thomson Reuters) 2 Savill v NZI Finance Ltd [1990] 3 NZLR 135 3 Bartley v Beale, HC Auckland HC 33/96, I July 1997 garage and a stud height of 2.1m. It was alleged that the respondent misrepresented the use to which the room could be put in law.

The Judge stated that where matters went wrong was not so much the description of the room as a bedroom but the mistake of both parties that its use complied with the law. The bylaw requirements were a matter of public record and were as accessible to the appellant as they were to the respondent. The Court stated: “Representations can be implied, but normally only where it would be reasonable for the representee to assume that the representor had special knowledge denied to the representee. All else being equal, one would expect lay purchasers to know as much about the law as lay vendors. Consequently one would normally impose upon a lay vendor the burden of an implied representation as to the law, and its application to a particular property, only where there were some particular reason for doing so. Such a reason might be found, for example, in circumstances where it would be reasonable to assume that the vendor had personally obtained a building permit or had had occasion to check resource management requirements before effecting recent change. I do not think that the appellant was justified in imputing any such knowledge to the respondents in the present case. The conversion was not a visibly recent one. There is nothing to suggest that the respondents held themselves out as knowledgeable on building by-laws in general. Nor did they imply that they had had occasion to check the position with respect to this particular room. It might have been different if they told the appellant they had built the room themselves. That might import the idea that they had had dealings with the local authority over it. But that was not the situation. The appellant knew as much about the room as they did. There was no justification for him to assume that they were advising him as to the legal position. A representation as to the legal position was neither expressed nor implied.

Conversely the High Court case of Tompkins v Wensley Developments The Marina Ltd (in liquidation) 4 is a situation where a representation about how an apartment could be used was found to be a misrepresentation about the law. The case involved a proposed residential development. Wensley sold a unit in the complex to Tompkins. The units sold were advertised as “two- key” meaning that one of the rear bedrooms could be used as a self-contained studio unit and separately rented out. However, the developer struck problems when the local Council issued an abatement notice requiring the developer to cease the two key arrangement because the Council took the view that the resource consent did not permit the units to be used in that manner. The developer did not accept the Council’s argument but negotiated a settlement agreeing not to continue with the concept until it regularised its position. They then set about obtaining a resource consent which was issued later, after Tompkins purchase contract had been cancelled. Tompkins argued that assurances received from the developers about the two key option amounted to misrepresentation because 4 Tompkins v Wensley Developments The Marina Ltd (in Liq) [2012] NZHC 1863 the original consent obtained by the developer did not extend to the two key option. The Court agreed that this amounted to a misrepresentation. However, it went on to find that the purchaser was not induced to enter the contract because of the misrepresentation. This is because there was evidence that the apartment was intended for their personal use and the two key option did not play a material part in their decision to purchase.

The distinction between the two cases is that in one scenario, it was found that the representor did not have knowledge about the bylaws relating to the basement conversion done some years prior to his ownership and he did not hold himself out as knowledgeable of the applicable by-laws. In the second scenario, there was reason to imply that the developer knew what was covered in the building consent for a development in which they were directly involved, and he provided the information as to how the unit could be used legally.

In the present circumstances, the property managers knew the law regarding the expiry of a fixed term tenancy and would also be expected to have that knowledge given their role as professional residential property managers. In their second email to the tenant on 25 January 2023, they went beyond making a proposal/offer of another fixed term and volunteered information about the options to end or continue the tenancy. While they were not legally obliged to advise the tenant of his options, they choose to do so, and I consider they must be up front about all the options or explicitly tell the tenant that they were not the only options. I find the property managers also went further than omitting an option, they clearly advised that they would relet the premises on the expiry of the term, if they did not hear from the tenant. This is false.

Having found that there was a misrepresentation, the other matters which must be proved by the tenant are: a. The misrepresentation must have induced the tenant to enter into the renewal agreement. The tenant must have acted reasonably in relying on, and therefore, being induced by the misrepresentation; b. The landlord must have intended to induce the tenant to enter the renewal agreement, or the representation must have been such as would induce a normal person to contract. 5

I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenant was induced to enter the renewal agreement because of the landlord’s misrepresentation. He produced evidence that he intended to purchase a property once he obtained his resident visa; he could not purchase a property in NZ until his visa was approved; his visa was expected to come through around the time that the first fixed term was expiring in March 2023. Given those circumstances, I accept the tenant’s submission 5 Savill v NZI Finance Ltd, above n2 that a periodic tenancy terminable on 28 days’ notice would have suited his circumstances perfectly. The only reason he opted to sign the renewal agreement was due to the landlord’s advice that he could either renew the agreement for another fixed term or vacate the tenancy.

While the tenant also ensured that the period of the tenancy fitted in with the term of his employment and negotiated a shorter period than first proposed by the landlord, that was only because he thought it sensible to do so. It was part of the reason for negotiating the period. However, again, had he known that a periodic tenancy was available, he would have chosen that option because it accommodated the ability to terminate the tenancy on notice either because he purchased a house or his employment ended, whichever event happened first. I also accept his submission that he felt under pressure to choose one of the two options presented by the landlord.

I am satisfied that it was entirely reasonable for the tenant to rely on and accept the information he had received from the landlords about the available options because it was given in their capacity as professional property managers of residential tenancies. He had no reason to consider that they were telling “half- truths.”

It follows that I am also satisfied that the representation was of such a nature that it would induce a normal person to contract as suggested by the property managers.

In summary, the tenant has proved all the elements required to establish misrepresentation by the landlords which induced him to sign a contract to extend the fixed term period of the tenancy. Therefore, I consider whether the tenant is entitled to compensation/damages for the misrepresentation. Compensation/Damages

It is a well-accepted principle when awarding damages that, so far as money can do it, the injured party shall be put in the same position as he would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of a tenancy agreement.

It is also a requirement of s49 RTA that where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or the RTA, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.

The tenant advised the landlord on 30 May 2023 that he wished to give notice to terminate the tenancy on 30 June 2023. Had this been a periodic tenancy, he would have been able to do so. He says rent paid for any period beyond 30 June should be refunded to him as compensation for misrepresentation.

While the tenant might’ve chosen a periodic tenancy had he known that it was an option, he nevertheless entered a further fixed term tenancy and negotiated the specific date the tenancy was to end. He says that he did not know that he could not terminate a fixed term tenancy. However, I do not accept this submission. The terms of the first tenancy agreement and the renewal explicitly state that it is “fixed” and specify the start date and the end date. Also, it is not a defence for the tenant to claim that he did not understand the implications of signing a fixed term tenancy. The obligation was on the tenant to read the tenancy agreement and seek advice about the terms if necessary.

To purchase a house with a settlement date 2 months before the tenancy was due to end was unwise. The tenant did not ask to end this tenancy until after the agreement for sale and purchase was unconditional. He likely could have negotiated a later settlement that better aligned with the tenancy end date. However, he did not consider this issue nor take any advice, alleging that he did not understand that he could not terminate the fixed term tenancy on notice before the end date. I find that the tenant has failed to mitigate his loss by taking reasonable steps which would have included seeking advice about the tenancy agreements he signed in the first place and seeking advice about ending the tenancy before entering an unconditional house purchase agreement.

In summary, I find both parties are at fault to some degree for the situation, with the landlord at fault for the misrepresentation, and the tenant at fault for failing to take reasonable steps to mitigate his loss. The next issue is to determine how to apportion blame. I consider that overall, the tenant should be compensated but not to the full extent claimed. The rent refund sought by the tenant for the period beyond the 28 days’ notice he gave, being from 1 July to 8 August (5 weeks and 4 days) at $410/week is $2,284.29. I find that the parties are equally to blame so that the tenant is responsible for half that rent as compensation. This results in the following calculation: DescriptionLandlordTenant 50% of rent payable by tenant 1.7.23-8.8.23$1,142.15 Other awards payable by tenant $467.00 Less bond received by landlord$1,640.00 Less payment from tenant $1,297.00 Subtotal $1,609.15$2,937.00 Overpayment to be refunded by landlord$1,327.85

Neither party has substantially succeeded with both at fault to some degree. Therefore, I do not grant suppression to either party and it is appropriate for each to wear the costs of the filing fees paid on their respective applications.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4672909 — net $1,327.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (50% of the rent owed for 1.7.23 -8.8.23	$1,142.15		Rent arrears (50% of the rent owed for 1.7.23 -8.8.23
Carpet Cleaning	$207.00		Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$150.00		Cleaning
Repairs: wall	$110.00		Repairs: wall
Bond received		$1,640.00	Bond received
Payment received		$1,297.00	Payment received
Total award	$1,609.15	$2,937.00
Net award		$1,327.85
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,327.85

This order replaces the Tribunal order made on 12 December 2023 under this application as it relates to rent arrears only.

The Tribunal order made on 12 December 2023 under this application remains in force regarding the orders for carpet cleaning, cleaning, and wall repairs

Taylor Property Plus (2006) Limited As Agent For Sharella Holdings Limited must pay Lu Liu $1,327.85 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 12 December 2023 under this application, to the extent that the previous order remains in force.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

It follows that I am also satisfied that the representation was of such a nature that it would induce a normal person to contract as suggested by the property managers.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4672909 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 302, 41 Hopper Street, Mount Cook, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4672909 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 302, 41 Hopper Street, Mount Cook, Wellington

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions