What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4829297 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4829297?

Compensation: Jump Starter: $259.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Shipping Containers (2: $9,706.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Silver: $1,480.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Stone Slabs: $52,080.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Vanity: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Kitchen Vinyl: $3,511.23 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Wheel Barrow: $410.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4829297?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4829297?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11387979-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4829297 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4829297?

Compensation: Jump Starter: $259.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Shipping Containers (2: $9,706.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Silver: $1,480.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Stone Slabs: $52,080.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Vanity: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Kitchen Vinyl: $3,511.23 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Wheel Barrow: $410.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4829297?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4829297?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11387979-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

3116 Lake Ferry Road, Lake Ferry, RD 2, Featherston 5772 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4829297 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4829297 — net $69,196.23 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Stone slabs	$52,080.00	Stone slabs
Compensation: Vinyl planking	$3,511.23	Vinyl planking
Compensation: Silver	$1,480.00	Silver
Compensation: Vanity	$250.00	Vanity
Compensation: Shipping containers (2	$9,706.00	Shipping containers (2
Compensation: Wheel barrow	$410.00	Wheel barrow
Compensation: Jump starter	$259.00	Jump starter
Exemplary damages	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$69,196.23
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$69,196.23

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4829297 — net $69,196.23 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Stone slabs	$52,080.00	Stone slabs
Compensation: Vinyl planking	$3,511.23	Vinyl planking
Compensation: Silver	$1,480.00	Silver
Compensation: Vanity	$250.00	Vanity
Compensation: Shipping containers (2	$9,706.00	Shipping containers (2
Compensation: Wheel barrow	$410.00	Wheel barrow
Compensation: Jump starter	$259.00	Jump starter
Exemplary damages	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$69,196.23
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$69,196.23

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Jessey Gordon and Natasha Robinson must pay [The tenant/s] $67,696.23 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionTenant Compensation: Stone slabs$52,080.00 Compensation: Vinyl planking$3,511.23 Compensation: Silver$1,480.00 Compensation: Vanity$250.00 Compensation: Shipping containers (2)$9,706.00 Compensation: Wheel barrow$410.00 Compensation: Jump starter$259.00 Exemplary damages$1,500.00 Total award$69,196.23 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant$69,196.23

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant against the landlord. The tenant seeks compensation for goods seized by the landlord and not returned to him, and also exemplary damages for the same.

BACKGROUND

The background in this case is unusual and involved.
The background is set out in reasonable detail, in a previous order of the Tribunal dated 3 September 2024, which I will discuss shortly, but I summarise that background as follows.
The premises are rural. [The tenant/s] evidence, which the Tribunal has accepted, is that around December 2021 he met the landlords, and it was agreed that: a. [The tenant/s] would move two shipping containers onto the premises, slabs of granite / marble (which I will now refer to simply as the ‘slabs’), and a pallet of tiles. b. At [The tenant/s] expense, he would move a cabin already on the premises, further away from the landlord’s house, and he would live in that cabin sharing some facilities in the house. In exchange [The tenant/s] would pay $500 rental per year, and assist with some renovation work for the landlords. 1
The Tribunal accepted that money had been paid by the tenant to the landlord. In October 2022, [The tenant/s] paid for two shipping containers to be taken to the property, and he paid for the cabin to be moved. The tenant has produced photographs to the Tribunal showing the slabs and shipping containers on the premises around that time.
[The tenant/s] states that when he pushed the landlords to provide a written tenancy agreement, their approach to him changed, and they then refused him access to the land. 1 Note that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 confirms that rent can include services, such as the renovation works proposed.
[The tenant/s] reports having an inability to access or remove his goods, and because of that went to the police. The response from Police, according to [The tenant/s], was that this was a civil matter, and subsequently, an application was filed with the Tribunal, which is the application before me. Hearing to decide if this was a residential tenancy
A hearing was convened before Adjudicator Ms Baker, in order to consider whether this was a residential tenancy. Ms Baker’s decision on that matter is dated 3 September 2024.
Ms Baker records that Ms Gordon and Ms Robinson denied having any tenancy arrangement with [The tenant/s], stating that the premises were Māori land, so could not be rented. After considering the evidence and arguments, Ms Baker concluded that this was a residential tenancy, and the parties were landlord and tenant.
I record here that Ms Baker found that the evidence from the tenants was implausible, noting for example that at the hearing Ms Gordon claimed that the shipping containers had not been on the property, but that was contradicted by Ms Robinson who said they were, and also inconsistent with photographs, including aerial photographs, of the containers on the land.
In any event, the effect of Ms Baker’s decision was to find that this was a residential tenancy falling within the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). That decision carried a right of rehearing or appeal, but those rights were not exercised by the tenants.
Having found that this was a residential tenancy within the RTA, Ms Baker adjourned the hearing so that the Tribunal could consider the specific claims of the tenant. Hearing on 18 October 2023
On 18 October 2023 I convened a hearing to consider the tenant’s claims. As I recorded in my interim order from that day, the landlords remained of the view that there was no landlord/tenant relationship, and strongly opposed the claim on that basis. I noted in the order that the Tribunal had made a finding otherwise; it has not been appealed, so it is binding.
In any event, I determined that the hearing should be adjourned, to allow a final opportunity for the landlord to return the tenant’s goods. An agreement was reached that the landlord would go to the premises with a truck, and uplift his goods, without any obstruction of the landlords. The hearing was adjourned so that the Tribunal could consider any remaining claim around goods not returned.
On 12 November 2024 the tenant went to the property as agreed, and uplifted the slabs that were remaining. However as I will discuss shortly, the tenant’s evidence is that some of the slabs were missing, and many were broken. Further, the shipping containers were not returned, and a range of other property was missing. Ultimately the tenant recovered any available goods that day. Hearing 31 January 2025
The hearing was then reconvened on 31 January 2025, and this written order follows that. At the hearing was [The tenant/s] represented again by [The tenant’s representative]. The only landlord in attendance was Ms Gordon.

TENANTS CASE

The tenant seeks compensation for missing or damaged goods, and exemplary damages for seizing or disposing of tenant property.
The tenant confirms that he did attend the premises in November following the prior hearing, with a truck to collect his goods. However, the tenant found that of the 35 slabs delivered to the premises, some were missing others broken. The end result was that the tenant was only able to recover 7 full slabs, from the 35 full slabs he had delivered originally.
The tenant states there was a pallet of his tiles which were also on site, but when his truck driver was lifting the pallet, it dropped, severely damaging the tiles. The tenant confirmed that ultimately those tiles were returned to him, and the fact they were broken had nothing to do with the landlord, so the claim for compensation for the tiles was withdrawn.
The landlord referred the Tribunal to a Facebook post, which offered the slabs for sale. The phone number attached to that advertisement included the landlord’s cell phone number. The tenant assumes the reason some slabs were missing, is because they were sold.
The tenant seeks compensation for the following missing or damaged items: a. Slabs - $52,080.00 i. The tenant states this was calculated on the basis that on average, to produce one benchtop requires 3 full slabs, and therefore there would have been sufficient slabs for 11 full benchtops. With reference to third-party evidence, the landlord states that each benchtop would have an average value of $7,440. Of the full slabs remaining, there was enough marble uplifted for 2.3 benchtops, but the tenant has approached it as the equivalent of 4 benchtops being uplifted which would be $29,760.00. As there were 11 benchtops of marble delivered, then that would have been $81,840.00. The loss claimed therefore is $52,080.00. b. Vinyl Planking - $3,511.23 The tenant states that a quantity of floor planking was in the containers, which was missing. The tenant refers to a quotation on file for supply of the planks to the amount missing. c. Silver - $1,480.00 The tenant described providing a block of silver to the landlord for safekeeping in the landlord’s house, but was told by the landlord it was ‘gone’ so could not be recovered. d. Vanity – $250.00 The tenant seeks $250.00 for a ‘good used’ vanity which was in the container. But when they arrived at the property in November 2024 to collect it, it was outside on the field and disintegrated. e. Shipping containers - $9,706.00 The tenant seeks $9,706.00 for two missing shipping containers, again with reference to a quotation based on photographs of the actual containers that were missing. f. Wheelbarrow and Jump starter - $669.00 The tenant seeks compensation for a missing wheelbarrow of $410.00, and jump starter (the cables are missing) of $259.00. Again this is with reference to quotations, in this case from [store 1] and [store 2].
The tenant also claims exemplary damages with respect to the landlord unlawfully seizing or disposing of tenant goods.
In concluding submissions (following the landlord’s submission set out below), the tenant strongly disputed that the items were gifted to the landlord, noting that it would make no sense to spend thousands of dollars to move the items to the premises, only to then gift them to the landlord.
It was in fact the landlord who refused the tenant access to the premises to uplift the goods, noting that the police needed to be involved with that (but their approach is that it was a civil dispute).
The tenant submits that the landlord has misappropriated the tenant’s goods. [The tenant/s] states that at no stage did the landlord offer or request the goods to be uplifted.

LANDLORDS CASE

The landlord read a written statement she had prepared. In that statement, Ms Gordon states they had a good relationship with the tenant initially. Within that relationship, they had agreed to store two containers on the property. Some work was offered in exchange. The landlord stated that the relationship broke down, and the tenant was asked to leave.
The landlord disputes the tenants claims, and denies that any actions were directed to obtain financial gain. In relation to each claim, the landlord advised: a. Slabs i. The landlord states there were cows and bulls on the land, which would have caused the damage to the slabs stored outside. The landlord states that the tenant had offered two slabs of marble and the containers if he could store goods on the premises, and she denies taking anything away otherwise. Ms Gordon states she had nothing to do with the sale of any slabs, and the number on the advertisement was Ms Robinson, but she does not know anything about it otherwise. b. Vinyl planking i. The landlord denies seeing any vinyl planking on the premises. The landlord considers that the tenant should be responsible for making sure his goods are safe, it is not the landlord’s responsibility. ii. I asked what happened to the shipping containers. Ms Gordon states that she has no idea what happened to them, Ms Robinson took care of those items, as far as the landlords were concerned, they were gifted to them. c. Silver i. Ms Gordon states that she did not have silver stored on behalf of the tenant. d. Vanity i. The landlord considers that it is the tenant’s fault this was damaged, because he had not removed this as he should have done. Ms Gordon states that she had a right to dispose of these items when they were left on the premises. e. Shipping container i. Again the landlord’s position is that the containers were gifted to them. f. Wheelbarrow i. The landlord states any wheelbarrow was her barrow, and gifted from her father. g. Jump starter i. The landlord disputes having the jump starter leads, but again maintains it is the tenant’s responsibility to take those.
In terms of the exemplary damages claim, Ms Gordon states that legally she is not the landlord so is not liable for any orders. It was the tenant’s responsibility to sort out his goods.

ANALYSIS

The primary defence presented by the tenants is that there was never any landlord/tenant relationship, and to that extent, there would be no obligations around tenant goods. That argument cannot succeed for the reasons I have previously advised. That is because the Tribunal (Adjudicator Baker) issued a decision addressed specifically to the question of whether this is a landlord/tenant relationship, and she found that it was. If the tenants disagreed with that decision, they needed to appeal it to the District Court, but they did not. What that means, is that the Adjudicator’s decision remains, and it is binding.
As a matter of fact and law, Ms Robinson and Ms Gordon are the landlords of [The tenant/s].
Even though it is not a matter I can revisit, I observe that I agree with the Adjudicator’s decision. All of the evidence available points solidly to a landlord-tenant relationship, and I would have reached the same conclusion as Ms Baker did. Landlord obligations around goods
Section 33 of the RTA applies, which relates to the seizure of tenant goods, and confirms that a landlord cannot seize or dispose of tenant goods. That provision holds:
Tenant’s goods not to be seized (1) The landlord shall not be entitled to seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods— (a) as security for or in payment of any amount owing by way of rent; or (b) for any other reason arising from the tenancy. (2) Seizing or disposing of any goods in contravention of subsection (1) is hereby declared to be an unlawful act.
There is however a limitation on section 33 and that relates to the situation where the tenant leaves goods on the premises, on the termination of the tenancy, and that is covered under section 62 of the RTA. However, there is no evidence to show that the tenant terminated, or abandoned the premises in this case. Rather, the evidence is that the tenant intended there to be a continuing tenancy, but it was the landlord who prohibited the tenant from going onto the premises.
In my assessment, there is no doubt that the landlord seized the tenant’s goods when the landlord prohibited the tenant from going onto the premises, meaning he could not access or remove his property. I also consider that the landlord has disposed of tenant goods as I will discuss more fully below. That must necessarily mean the landlords have breached their obligations under section 33. Compensation claims
Where goods are seized by a landlord, the tenant is entitled to be compensated for those goods. The tenant must satisfied the Tribunal that the claimed goods were on the premises and not returned, and confirm what the loss for the tenant would be. The Tribunal can order compensation to compensate for that loss, but any order should not put the tenant in a better or worse position.
I will consider the claims individually as follows: Slabs - $52,080.00
The tenant had large slabs marble and granite delivered on-site at the start of the tenancy. Photographs have been provided of that. When the tenant was able to collect those slabs in late 2024, some were missing, and many were broken.
The tenant referred me to a Facebook Marketplace advertisement, which carries the phone number of one of the landlords. That is under the name of ‘Granite Featherston’, and includes an offer to sell “Granite and Italian Marble Slabs $7000 for the lot”.
I consider it more likely than not that the landlord has disposed of the missing slabs. I accept that the landlord was advertising slabs for sale, which in the absence of an explanation from the landlord on that advertisement, I consider probably represented the landlord trying to sell the tenants goods – the slabs.
I accept that how the slabs were stored on site by the tenant, on an ‘A’ frame, would have meant it would be unlikely they would have fallen and broken without any external forces. When the goods were seized by the landlord, the landlord would become responsible for the safekeeping of those goods, and any damage when the slabs were in the landlord’s possession would become the landlord’s responsibility. There is no evidence to show that the slabs became missing or broken prior to the landlord’s seizure of them.
I do not accept the landlord’s statement that the slabs, or any of the items claimed by the tenant as missing, were gifted to the landlord. I agree with the tenant, that it would make no sense that he went to the trouble and significant expense of transporting these heavy and bulky items to the premises, including two shipping containers, only to give them away to the landlord. The landlord has provided no documentation or other evidence to suggest that any items were gifted, I do not accept the landlord’s oral evidence of that.
I find by a comfortable margin that most of the slabs were missing or damaged, and the landlord is responsible for that and therefore the losses to the tenant.
The tenant claims $52,080.00 in compensation, and has explained how he has calculated the loss. The tenant’s claim is based on what he would have sold the finished kitchen benches for. The tenant explained that an average kitchen would require three slabs, and that a nominal sale price for a kitchen benchtop (using the three slabs) would be $7,440.00.
In support of this, a statement and nominal quotation was provided from [Stone experts], supporting that the tenant had purchased 20 tonnes of marble from them, and that a nominal sale price for a benchtop would be $7,442.80.
Also in support was a statement from [Stone business], who had viewed photographs of the slabs and confirmed it would be sufficient for approximately 11 kitchens.
The claim therefore must necessarily be based on the loss of the material price (supply cost), and the profit he would have derived from selling the finished bench tops. The tenant confirmed at the hearing that he personally would have manufactured the benchtops.
Claims for loss of profit can be made in contract law. 2
I note for example, the High Court decision of Byrne v Rose [2019] NZHC
There were a number of claims in that case, but of relevance a claim for a loss of profit for a contract breach. In very brief summary, Mrs Rose was a farmer, and she contracted Byrne to build a cow shed where her cows would be milked. Byrne built the shed, but the floor was too slippery for the cows, and Mrs Rose needed to cease milking her cows as it was too unsafe for them. That resulted in a reduction of milk production, meaning a reduction of profit for Ms Rose from milk sales. In the High Court, Ms Rose claimed for a loss of the milk profit from Byrne, and a loss of profit was ordered.
The High Court accepted that there had been a breach on the part of Byrne, which caused a loss of profit for Ms Rose. In making an order for the loss of profit, the High Court summarised the relevant considerations as follows: [230] In my view, Mrs Rose did what was required of her to attempt to try and fix the problems. ... She said that Mr Holland gave no useful assistance when she sought some guidance on how to remedy the slippery floors. Mr Byrne denied that anything was wrong throughout. The lack of assistance by them allowed the losses to continue. She could not use the shed to milk and she had no alternative venue to milk the cows. [231] Mr Downing for the Byrnes submitted that the loss of milk production was too remote to be claimable. [232] Assessing remoteness involves the application of the well- known test in Hadley v Baxendale. This provides that claimable damages in contract are those losses that arose either in the usual course of events following the relevant breach, or were the type or kind of relevant loss that was reasonably within the (actual or imputed) contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was made. This test is not focused on the extent or seriousness of the loss, but the type of loss. The act in breach must be an “effective cause” of the loss. In other words, if there are two equal causes of loss the Court “need not choose which cause was the more effective”. 2 The Tenancy Tribunal can make any order the High Court could make for a breach of contract – see RTA section 78(1)(h).
Putting that into the situation for [The tenant/s] and his landlords, I find [The tenant/s] has sustained a loss from the landlord’s breach (seizing his slabs). I accept that if the breach had not occurred, [The tenant/s] is likely to have used those slabs for the manufacture of kitchen bench tops which he would have sold at a profit. I consider that this must have been in the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was entered into. The landlords must have known that [The tenant/s] was a tradesman and that the 7 odd tonnes of slabs (35 slabs), were commercial quantities and would have been used by [the tenant/s] for commercial purposes. It must have been in the contemplation or knowledge of the landlords that depriving [The tenant/s] of those slabs would mean he would lose any profit available to him from that material.
We cannot know with precision what exactly each of the slabs would have been used for, or the profit made, but the only evidence presented is that from the third-party companies, upon which the calculation of lost profit is made. The landlords could have produced alternate cost / profit estimates, but they have not. I have no reason not to accept the landlord’s evidence around his loss. The Tribunal therefore orders the landlords to compensate the tenant to the sum of $52,080.00 being the combined material and loss of profit from the missing and damaged slabs. Vinyl Planking - $3,511.23
I accept the tenant’s evidence that there was a large quantity of vinyl planking in one of the shipping containers that was not returned to him, in fact the entire container was not returned. The landlord has provided a quotation for the supply of the same planking product and quantity, and I accept that quotation represents the tenant’s loss, this claim is ordered in full. Silver $1,480.00
The tenant’s evidence is that he had a 1 kg block of silver, that he had stored with the landlord, in safekeeping in the landlords house. After hearing from the parties, and where in the landlord’s premises the block was likely to have been stored, I accept this was left with the landlord.
It would have been unlikely that the tenant would have agreed to have that item stored on the landlord property, if this were not a landlord tenant situation. I am also minded that the evidence is the tenant was to share some of the facilities in the landlord’s house.
I have no reason to conclude that the amount claimed would not be a fair amount for the silver. Undoubtedly the market price for commodities goes up and down, but the landlord has provided confirmation of the value of the silver at a recent point in time, and it would be fair to apply that as representing the tenant’s lost. This claim is ordered in full. Vanity – $250.00
The Tribunal accepts the evidence from the tenant, that a bathroom vanity was stored in one of the shipping containers. When the tenant returned to collect his goods in late 2024, the vanity was outside in the elements, and it had disintegrated no doubt from the exposure to rain. The vanity was not new, but the tenant described it to be in good condition. The landlord seeks $250 compensation for that, and that would seem reasonable as I accept it would be a portion of a new vanity cost. This claim is established and ordered in full. Shipping containers - $9,706.00
The evidence is that there were two shipping containers on the premises, and while it seems that the landlord originally denied that was the case, now accepts those shipping containers were present. I do not know what happened to the shipping containers. I asked the landlords what happened to the containers, but they state they do not know. I doubt that is the case. The landlord was given an ample opportunity to return the shipping containers, but failed to do so.
The tenant has provided a quotation from a shipping container supply company, and when obtaining that quotation provided photographs of the containers that were missing. Therefore it can be accepted that the quotation from the supplier would be a fair representation of the replacement cost for those containers. This claim is established and ordered in full. Wheelbarrow and Jump starter - $669.00
I have no reason not to accept the tenant’s evidence that he lent the landlord his wheelbarrow, and jump starter kit. I accept the tenants evidence that the wheelbarrow was not returned, and that while the jump starter unit was returned, the cables necessary to operate the unit were not returned by the landlord, meaning the item is effectively useless.
The tenant has provided evidence from mainstream suppliers of the replacement cost of those items, I accept those replacement prices as indicative of the tenant’s loss. These claims are accepted, and I order them in full. Exemplary damages
The tenant has claimed exemplary damages for the landlord’s seizing and disposing of his goods. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act, which for a breach of section 33, is $3,000.00.
I have considered the section 109 factors, and conclude that exemplary damages should be ordered. I consider that the landlords intentionally seized the tenant’s goods, no alternate conclusion could possibly arise on the evidence. The effect of the unlawful act was significant for the tenant, he was deprived of his goods, some of which would have been used for an income. Further, it has been a very difficult process for the landlord in recovering what goods could be returned, as well as dealing with the police and Tribunal processes. There is a very strong interest for tenants and the public generally that landlords do not seize and dispose of tenant goods without proper lawful authority. It would be just to make an order in this case.
I have determined that exemplary damages at 50% of the maximum would be indicated. This is a particularly egregious case, the breach on the part of the landlord was significant and even when the tenant and his advocates made efforts to get his goods bank, the tenant refused or obstructed that process. I consider that an award at half of the maximum would in the circumstances, be required.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The tenant applies for name suppression. Because the tenant has been wholly successful in his claim, tenant name suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4829297 — Property damage at 3116 Lake Ferry Road, Lake Ferry, RD 2, Featherston 5772

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4829297 — Property damage at 3116 Lake Ferry Road, Lake Ferry, RD 2, Featherston 5772

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CASE

LANDLORDS CASE

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CASE

LANDLORDS CASE

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions