What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4759977?

The tribunal order states: Stacey May Laking and Benjamin Richard Henderson must pay Heidi Phillips

How much money was awarded in case 4759977?

Bean Bag, Child'S Bean Bag And Foot…: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Bedside Lamp: $229.00 awarded to landlord; Blender And Slow Cooker: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Bookshelf: $799.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet Uplift And Disposal: $578.61 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,065.00 awarded to landlord; Curtain And Curtain Rod: $753.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Hand Basin: $1,065.00 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Remote: $111.47 awarded to landlord; Hexagon Shelves: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Window Glass: $194.42 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Living Room Blind: $271.34 awarded to landlord; Living Room Rug: $131.72 awarded to landlord; Marble Vanity Top: $1,725.00 awarded to landlord; Oak Coffee Table: $229.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4699910 D…: $4,117.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,123.49 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $7,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,812.25 awarded to landlord; Toilet Rug: $174.26 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4759977?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4759977?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9887077-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4759977?

The tribunal order states: Stacey May Laking and Benjamin Richard Henderson must pay Heidi Phillips

How much money was awarded in case 4759977?

Bean Bag, Child'S Bean Bag And Foot…: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Bedside Lamp: $229.00 awarded to landlord; Blender And Slow Cooker: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Bookshelf: $799.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet Uplift And Disposal: $578.61 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,065.00 awarded to landlord; Curtain And Curtain Rod: $753.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Hand Basin: $1,065.00 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Remote: $111.47 awarded to landlord; Hexagon Shelves: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Window Glass: $194.42 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Living Room Blind: $271.34 awarded to landlord; Living Room Rug: $131.72 awarded to landlord; Marble Vanity Top: $1,725.00 awarded to landlord; Oak Coffee Table: $229.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4699910 D…: $4,117.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,123.49 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $7,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,812.25 awarded to landlord; Toilet Rug: $174.26 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4759977?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4759977?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9887077-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Studfold Row, Westmorland, Christchurch 8025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4759977 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4759977 — net $26,509.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4699910 dated 9 November 2023	$4,117.44	Previous order application 4699910 dated 9 November 2023
Toilet rug	$174.26	Toilet rug
Living room rug	$131.72	Living room rug
Heat pump remote	$111.47	Heat pump remote
Living room blind	$271.34	Living room blind
Window frame damage	$350.00	Window frame damage
Kitchen window glass	$194.42	Kitchen window glass
Curtain and curtain rod	$753.00	Curtain and curtain rod
Bedside lamp	$229.00	Bedside lamp
Repairs and painting	$2,123.49	Repairs and painting
Oak coffee table	$229.00	Oak coffee table
Bean bag, child's bean bag and foot stall	$250.00	Bean bag, child's bean bag and foot stall
Hexagon shelves	$120.00	Hexagon shelves
Carpet uplift and disposal	$578.61	Carpet uplift and disposal
Carpet replacement	$7,000.00	Carpet replacement
Cleaning	$1,065.00	Cleaning
__________________________________________________________________________________ 47599772 Garden work	$299.00	__________________________________________________________________________________ 47599772 Garden work
Hand basin	$1,065.00	Hand basin
Marble vanity top	$1,725.00	Marble vanity top
Timber floor repair	$3,812.25	Timber floor repair
Bookshelf	$799.00	Bookshelf
Blender and slow cooker	$90.00	Blender and slow cooker
Exemplary damages - unlawful use	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages - unlawful use
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$26,509.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$26,509.44

Order

Stacey May Laking and Benjamin Richard Henderson must pay Heidi Phillips $26,509.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 9 November 2023 under application 4699910.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenants did not attend.
After the hearing ended, it was brought to my attention that the Tribunal received an email from Ms Laking at 9.51am, approximately 20 minutes after the hearing commenced, stating that she was expecting the hearing to be by telephone as was the previous hearing in relation to this tenancy.
The previous hearing was conducted by telephone as was stated clearly on the Notice of Hearing for that hearing. The Notice of Hearing for today’s hearing gives the location of the hearing as the Christchurch Justice Precinct, it does not state that it will be conducted by telephone and the notes accompanying the notice make it very clear that the parties are expected to attend the hearing in person.
The tenants are entitled to make an application for a rehearing as explained in the notes accompanying this order. If they make such an application, the Tribunal will need to consider whether the tenants non-attendance was the result of a genuine misunderstanding and whether a rehearing might result in a different outcome.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The landlord lived in the premises from 2016 until 2023. There was then a short tenancy before this tenancy. So, the premises were a rental for only a short time.
This tenancy began on 30 June 2023 and ended on 15 October 2023 following a termination notice from the landlord citing the owner or owner’s family member intending to occupy the premises. The tenancy therefore lasted three and a half months. A lot happened in that time.
The Police raided the premises during the tenancy and arrested Mr Henderson. The Police have confirmed that they found drug paraphernalia at the premises and that there was gang association with the premises.
After the tenants had vacated the premises, the landlord found that they were extensively damaged.
It seems that the tenants had two puppies in the premises during the tenancy and the landlord found that there was extensive contamination from dog urine including to carpet, curtains and wooden flooring. There was an overpowering stench of urine, and carpet and flooring were stained.
There were items belonging to the landlord that were missing or damaged and there was damage to walls and joinery, some of which the tenants had attempted to repair and paint over but not to an acceptable standard.
There was some communication between the landlord and Ms Laking after the tenancy ended. The landlord informed her of the clams that she intended making, and Ms Laking accepted some of them, including some related to damage from urine. Other claims she disputed.
There were indications of drug use at the premises. In addition to drug paraphernalia, there was an elaborate security system installed in the premises with cameras in every room and outside the house which a central monitor. There were also unusual residues in places such as on the windows, sink bowls and the fireplace.
As well, there was damage that had been caused by someone firing an air gun of some sort inside the house. There were pellets embedded in places and holes where the pellets had penetrated fittings.
The tenant had used items belonging to the landlord around the garden apparently to secure the perimeter of the premises. The items included a spare marble bench top which was damaged. Law
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.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises during the tenancy.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
The Tribunal must consider betterment where necessary. 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 considering betterment, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan are relevant. Evidence, Discussion and Findings
The landlord produced good evidence to support her claims. There were photographs taken at the start and at the end of the tenancy, invoices, estimates, quotes and other evidence of the value of the claims. There were also written statements from third parties as to the condition of the premises. The landlord gave oral evidence that was credible and persuasive.
The ingoing photographs showed that there was no damage to the premises at the start of the tenancy apart from some minor wear and tear.
The evidence satisfied me that the premises were contaminated by dog urine. All but one room/area of the house was affected. The carpet was so contaminated that it was beyond cleaning and had to be replaced. Some other items were damaged by urine including a curtain, beanbags, a timber bookshelf and a rug.
Other damage to the premises during the tenancy included a blind and window frame damaged by airgun pellets, cracked kitchen window glass, numerous areas of wall and joinery damaged and in some cases inadequately repaired, a cracked hand basin, and a marble vanity top.
Landlord chattels were missing from the premises at the end of the tenancy including a toilet rug, a heat pump remote, a curtain rod, a bedside lamp, an oak coffee table, a shelving unit, a blender and a slow cooker.
The premises were not left reasonably clean. There were two claims for cleaning. One for the interior windows which were covered in an unidentified residue. The other for general cleaning.
The garden was not left tidy and garden work was needed after the tenancy ended. The tenants were not responsible for mowing the lawn, but they did not allow the landlord’s gardener to mow it during the tenancy. The tenants were responsible for keeping the garden tidy otherwise, but they neglected it.
I am satisfied that the damage from the dog urine was intentional. The tenants may not have consciously intended to cause the damage, but such extensive and repeated damage cannot have occurred due to mere carelessness. It should have been obvious to the tenants that unless their puppies were supervised and managed that they would urinate in the premises. Either they were aware that the contamination was happening and did not act to prevent it, or they left the puppies in the premises knowing that the contamination was certain to occur.
The premises were not insured for accidental damage and so the maximum that the landlord can recover for each incident of careless damage is four weeks rent, which in this case is $4,780. Because I have found that the urine contamination was intentional, no limit applies to damage from urine. Even if the limit did apply, it would apply, at best for the tenant, to each room of the premises and so it would not limit the landlord’s claim. No other claims are affected by the limit.
The carpet was five years old and in good condition at the start of the tenancy. Good quality carpet should last at least 15 years in a rental. Considering that the landlord has been put to the expense of replacing the carpet now and not, say, in 10 years’ time, a discount of 20% for betterment in relation to carpet damage would be appropriate.
But the landlord has agreed to deduct the cost of laying the carpet being $1,000, and the cost of replacing the carpet in the one room not affected by the contamination, being approximately $700. Given those concessions, I find that no deduction from the cost of replacing the carpet is required. The landlord’s concessions have reduced the cost of replacing the carpet from $8,629.40 to $7,000.
The other damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and it was beyond fair and tear. The tenants did not disprove that they caused the damage either carelessly or intentionally.
The other awards were proved by a combination of invoices, quotes, other evidence of value and the landlord’s evidence. I am satisfied that the awards are reasonable in amount. I would add that there were other claims that the landlord could have made and succeeded with such as for additional damage found after the carpets were lifted and other missing and damaged items such as paintings. Exemplary Damages for Unlawful Use of the Premises
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00.
I am satisfied that the tenants used or allowed others to use illicit drugs in the premises. Given the nature of the drug paraphernalia found in the premises, even after the tenants had vacated and removed their belongings, it is likely that methamphetamine was used in the premises during the tenancy. Other evidence points to more than use of class C drugs.
There was also clear evidence that an airgun was fired repeatedly in the premises during the tenancy. That is an offence under the Arms Act 1983.
I find, therefore, that the tenants have committed an unlawful act by possessing and using illicit drugs in the premises and firing an airgun in the premises.
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.
These unlawful acts are serious. The use of methamphetamine has the potential to cause harm to human health and to result in considerable cost to the landlord. Firing an airgun inside the premises is dangerous and has resulted in damage and cost to the landlord. A substantial award is therefore required, and I have therefore awarded $1,000. Previous Order
On 9 November 2023 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears. The bond was paid to the landlord under the order. That order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. Filing Fee
The landlord has had substantial success and so I have awarded her the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4759977 — net $26,509.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4699910 dated 9 November 2023	$4,117.44	Previous order application 4699910 dated 9 November 2023
Toilet rug	$174.26	Toilet rug
Living room rug	$131.72	Living room rug
Heat pump remote	$111.47	Heat pump remote
Living room blind	$271.34	Living room blind
Window frame damage	$350.00	Window frame damage
Kitchen window glass	$194.42	Kitchen window glass
Curtain and curtain rod	$753.00	Curtain and curtain rod
Bedside lamp	$229.00	Bedside lamp
Repairs and painting	$2,123.49	Repairs and painting
Oak coffee table	$229.00	Oak coffee table
Bean bag, child's bean bag and foot stall	$250.00	Bean bag, child's bean bag and foot stall
Hexagon shelves	$120.00	Hexagon shelves
Carpet uplift and disposal	$578.61	Carpet uplift and disposal
Carpet replacement	$7,000.00	Carpet replacement
Cleaning	$1,065.00	Cleaning
__________________________________________________________________________________ 47599772 Garden work	$299.00	__________________________________________________________________________________ 47599772 Garden work
Hand basin	$1,065.00	Hand basin
Marble vanity top	$1,725.00	Marble vanity top
Timber floor repair	$3,812.25	Timber floor repair
Bookshelf	$799.00	Bookshelf
Blender and slow cooker	$90.00	Blender and slow cooker
Exemplary damages - unlawful use	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages - unlawful use
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$26,509.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$26,509.44

Order

Stacey May Laking and Benjamin Richard Henderson must pay Heidi Phillips $26,509.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 9 November 2023 under application 4699910.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenants did not attend.
After the hearing ended, it was brought to my attention that the Tribunal received an email from Ms Laking at 9.51am, approximately 20 minutes after the hearing commenced, stating that she was expecting the hearing to be by telephone as was the previous hearing in relation to this tenancy.
The previous hearing was conducted by telephone as was stated clearly on the Notice of Hearing for that hearing. The Notice of Hearing for today’s hearing gives the location of the hearing as the Christchurch Justice Precinct, it does not state that it will be conducted by telephone and the notes accompanying the notice make it very clear that the parties are expected to attend the hearing in person.
The tenants are entitled to make an application for a rehearing as explained in the notes accompanying this order. If they make such an application, the Tribunal will need to consider whether the tenants non-attendance was the result of a genuine misunderstanding and whether a rehearing might result in a different outcome.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The landlord lived in the premises from 2016 until 2023. There was then a short tenancy before this tenancy. So, the premises were a rental for only a short time.
This tenancy began on 30 June 2023 and ended on 15 October 2023 following a termination notice from the landlord citing the owner or owner’s family member intending to occupy the premises. The tenancy therefore lasted three and a half months. A lot happened in that time.
The Police raided the premises during the tenancy and arrested Mr Henderson. The Police have confirmed that they found drug paraphernalia at the premises and that there was gang association with the premises.
After the tenants had vacated the premises, the landlord found that they were extensively damaged.
It seems that the tenants had two puppies in the premises during the tenancy and the landlord found that there was extensive contamination from dog urine including to carpet, curtains and wooden flooring. There was an overpowering stench of urine, and carpet and flooring were stained.
There were items belonging to the landlord that were missing or damaged and there was damage to walls and joinery, some of which the tenants had attempted to repair and paint over but not to an acceptable standard.
There was some communication between the landlord and Ms Laking after the tenancy ended. The landlord informed her of the clams that she intended making, and Ms Laking accepted some of them, including some related to damage from urine. Other claims she disputed.
There were indications of drug use at the premises. In addition to drug paraphernalia, there was an elaborate security system installed in the premises with cameras in every room and outside the house which a central monitor. There were also unusual residues in places such as on the windows, sink bowls and the fireplace.
As well, there was damage that had been caused by someone firing an air gun of some sort inside the house. There were pellets embedded in places and holes where the pellets had penetrated fittings.
The tenant had used items belonging to the landlord around the garden apparently to secure the perimeter of the premises. The items included a spare marble bench top which was damaged. Law
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.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises during the tenancy.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
The Tribunal must consider betterment where necessary. 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 considering betterment, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan are relevant. Evidence, Discussion and Findings
The landlord produced good evidence to support her claims. There were photographs taken at the start and at the end of the tenancy, invoices, estimates, quotes and other evidence of the value of the claims. There were also written statements from third parties as to the condition of the premises. The landlord gave oral evidence that was credible and persuasive.
The ingoing photographs showed that there was no damage to the premises at the start of the tenancy apart from some minor wear and tear.
The evidence satisfied me that the premises were contaminated by dog urine. All but one room/area of the house was affected. The carpet was so contaminated that it was beyond cleaning and had to be replaced. Some other items were damaged by urine including a curtain, beanbags, a timber bookshelf and a rug.
Other damage to the premises during the tenancy included a blind and window frame damaged by airgun pellets, cracked kitchen window glass, numerous areas of wall and joinery damaged and in some cases inadequately repaired, a cracked hand basin, and a marble vanity top.
Landlord chattels were missing from the premises at the end of the tenancy including a toilet rug, a heat pump remote, a curtain rod, a bedside lamp, an oak coffee table, a shelving unit, a blender and a slow cooker.
The premises were not left reasonably clean. There were two claims for cleaning. One for the interior windows which were covered in an unidentified residue. The other for general cleaning.
The garden was not left tidy and garden work was needed after the tenancy ended. The tenants were not responsible for mowing the lawn, but they did not allow the landlord’s gardener to mow it during the tenancy. The tenants were responsible for keeping the garden tidy otherwise, but they neglected it.
I am satisfied that the damage from the dog urine was intentional. The tenants may not have consciously intended to cause the damage, but such extensive and repeated damage cannot have occurred due to mere carelessness. It should have been obvious to the tenants that unless their puppies were supervised and managed that they would urinate in the premises. Either they were aware that the contamination was happening and did not act to prevent it, or they left the puppies in the premises knowing that the contamination was certain to occur.
The premises were not insured for accidental damage and so the maximum that the landlord can recover for each incident of careless damage is four weeks rent, which in this case is $4,780. Because I have found that the urine contamination was intentional, no limit applies to damage from urine. Even if the limit did apply, it would apply, at best for the tenant, to each room of the premises and so it would not limit the landlord’s claim. No other claims are affected by the limit.
The carpet was five years old and in good condition at the start of the tenancy. Good quality carpet should last at least 15 years in a rental. Considering that the landlord has been put to the expense of replacing the carpet now and not, say, in 10 years’ time, a discount of 20% for betterment in relation to carpet damage would be appropriate.
But the landlord has agreed to deduct the cost of laying the carpet being $1,000, and the cost of replacing the carpet in the one room not affected by the contamination, being approximately $700. Given those concessions, I find that no deduction from the cost of replacing the carpet is required. The landlord’s concessions have reduced the cost of replacing the carpet from $8,629.40 to $7,000.
The other damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and it was beyond fair and tear. The tenants did not disprove that they caused the damage either carelessly or intentionally.
The other awards were proved by a combination of invoices, quotes, other evidence of value and the landlord’s evidence. I am satisfied that the awards are reasonable in amount. I would add that there were other claims that the landlord could have made and succeeded with such as for additional damage found after the carpets were lifted and other missing and damaged items such as paintings. Exemplary Damages for Unlawful Use of the Premises
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00.
I am satisfied that the tenants used or allowed others to use illicit drugs in the premises. Given the nature of the drug paraphernalia found in the premises, even after the tenants had vacated and removed their belongings, it is likely that methamphetamine was used in the premises during the tenancy. Other evidence points to more than use of class C drugs.
There was also clear evidence that an airgun was fired repeatedly in the premises during the tenancy. That is an offence under the Arms Act 1983.
I find, therefore, that the tenants have committed an unlawful act by possessing and using illicit drugs in the premises and firing an airgun in the premises.
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.
These unlawful acts are serious. The use of methamphetamine has the potential to cause harm to human health and to result in considerable cost to the landlord. Firing an airgun inside the premises is dangerous and has resulted in damage and cost to the landlord. A substantial award is therefore required, and I have therefore awarded $1,000. Previous Order
On 9 November 2023 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears. The bond was paid to the landlord under the order. That order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. Filing Fee
The landlord has had substantial success and so I have awarded her the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4759977 — Property damage at 3 Studfold Row, Westmorland, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4759977 — Property damage at 3 Studfold Row, Westmorland, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions