What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5268999 about?

The tribunal order states: Tamplin Property Services Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management must

How much money was awarded in case 5268999?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5268999?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5268999?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12894126-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5268999 about?

The tribunal order states: Tamplin Property Services Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management must

How much money was awarded in case 5268999?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5268999?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5268999?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12894126-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10a Cavendish Square, Strathmore Park, Wellington 6022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5268999 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Tamplin Property Services Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $1,651.43 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

below) $1,428.57 Bond received by landlord $3,080.00 Total award$1,428.57$3,080.00 Net award $1,651.43 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $1,651.43 Reasons:

Both parties attended the video hearing which proceeded as a rehearing. Mr Wilkins and Mr Dacombe-Bird represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The bond has already been received by the landlord pursuant to a previous Tribunal order.

Is the tenant responsible for the rent arrears?

The landlord submitted a rent summary which proves rent arrears of $8,457.14 up to 10 June 2025.
The tenant claims that he should not be solely responsible for the rent arrears because there were two other tenants who were part of the tenancy and should be responsible for some of the arrears. Furthermore, he did not agree to extend the fixed term for another year. Therefore, the tenancy was periodic. The landlord should have allowed him to end the tenancy on notice when he asked to end it in late October/November 2024, and he should not be liable for all the rent arrears on account of the landlord’s misrepresentation about the tenancy.
It follows that the issues to be determined are: a. Did Mr Singh become the sole tenant and/or can he be held solely liable for the arrears; b. Did Mr Singh agree to extend the fixed term for another year or was the tenancy periodic; c. If the tenancy was periodic, did the landlord wrongly advise the tenant that the tenancy was extended for a further fixed term and could not be ended on notice? d. If so, should the landlord be estopped from claiming the rent owed after the tenant could have lawfully terminated the tenancy on notice? Background facts
The original fixed term tenancy agreement was signed by Mr Singh and his partner (Ms P) at the time. It started on 29 July 2023 for a fixed term ending on 24 July 2024. At some point, the tenants also had 2 flatmates living at the premises, Ms K and Ms H.
On 6 June 2024, Ms P emailed Mr Wilkins to advise that she was intending to move out of the premises. There followed an exchange of emails between Ms P and Mr Wilkins only. Neither Mr Singh nor the other flatmates were copied into these emails. The emails are summarised as follows: Email #1: 6 June 2024 at 9.00am— Ms P to Mr Wilkins “....I am looking to move out....rest of the current tenants are staying. Just needed to clarify the notice period for this property?...” Email #2: 6 June at 9.10am—Mr Wilkins to Ms P “...If the other tenants are wanting to stay on, then you will not need to provide a notice period. We will just need to complete a change of tenant agreement to remove you from the tenancy. The other tenants will need to decide if they are ok to take on the responsibility of the tenancy with one less person. The termination date is the 29/07/2024, as you are on a fixed term agreement. You are able to give notice to end the tenancy on that date, a minimum of 28 Days prior to that date...” Email #3: 10 June at 9.22pm—Ms P to Mr Wilkins “...Is there an option to sign for another year once 29/07/2024? Email #4: 11 June at 12.54pm—Mr Wilkins to Ms P “...happy to offer you 1 year extension with $30 increase in your weekly rent. Please note, if accepted, that your new rent of $800 PW will be effective from 10/8/2024.....Please advise me on lease extension. Email #5: 9 July at 11.16am—Mr Wilkins to Ms P “I’m just needing to confirm what your intentions are....please get back to me as soon as possible......If you are wanting to end the tenancy, you are required to provide 28 days’ notice.” Email #6: 15 July at 10.42am—Ms P to Mr Wilkins “...I have moved out myself but I have spoken to Paramvir and the others and they are wanting to stay on. Would you be able to contact him regarding the property.” Email #7: 15 July at 10.51am—Mr Wilkins to Ms P and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] attaching the above email thread “...I will need you to all work together to get the paperwork in order for this tenancy. We will need to complete an agreement to remove [Ms P] and continue on with the rest of the tenants with the extension. Can I also please confirm the names of everyone residing there? At the moment, I only have you and Paramvir as named tenants”
The landlord followed up with a further email as follows: Email #8: 24 July at 10.26am—Mr Wilkins to Ms P & Mr Singh “I have not had any response in regards to an extension.....we need confirmation as soon as possible...... As you are both named tenants, it is your responsibility to contact me with any changes and what your intentions are. I understand that [Ms P] has moved out and the remaining tenants wish to continue so please until paperwork has been completed the current named tenants will remain responsible for this tenancy. If it rolls on to a periodic tenancy (if nothing is received this will happen on the 29 th July), one tenant is able to give notice to end the entire tenancy, with or without permission from the rest of the tenants .....(this is in line with tenancy law). Please get in touch as soon as you can to sort out this situation. I have attached the bond form for you all so that we can update the bond centre with the current tenants. We will also need to complete a change of tenant agreement to update all of the tenant names on our system.”
The landlord’s reference to the bond form above was in fact a change of tenant form for departing tenants, continuing tenants and new tenants to sign recording the change of tenants and the effective dates. Ms P replied on 24 July that Mr Singh was still overseas, and she would try to get the paperwork signed. The landlord also sent further clarification by email on 24 July that as only Mr Singh and Ms P were currently named as tenants, any others who they wished to name on the tenancy agreement would need to complete an application form (which he attached) and be approved by the landlord. If other occupants were not added to the tenancy agreement as tenants, then just the named tenants would be responsible for the other occupants’ actions.
Following the above exchanges, Ms P sent an email to Mr Wilkins and Mr Singh attaching a Change of Tenant form (COT) signed by her as the departing tenant and signed by Mr Singh as the continuing tenant. She stated as follows: Email #9 24 July at 1.07pm—Ms P to Mr Wilkins & Mr Singh:“....It was just myself and Paramvir who paid the bond amount so have removed my name and left Paramvir on it. In terms of the tenancy, Paramvir is staying on at the address. Have attached a form below for one of the new tenants. Paramvir is in the process of looking at another flatmate......once she has completed the form I can send that to you as well.”
On 29 July 2024, the fixed term expired. There are no records of any communications between the parties after 24 July and before the fixed term expired on 29 July, and nothing in writing to record whether or not the parties mutually agreed to extend the fixed term.
On receiving the COT, Mr Wilkins countersigned it on 5 August 2024 and Bond Centre records show that it was lodged on 6 August. The effect of the tenants filling out and signing the COT was that Ms P’s tenancy ended on 25 June 2024 and Mr Singh became the sole tenant.
In the meantime, the landlord processed an application from one of the flatmates, Ms K. On 13 August 2024, Mr Wilkins emailed Mr Singh requesting his phone number so that he could be noted as the head tenant on their system. He also asked about references for Ms K. Mr Singh replied providing those details on 14 August.
On 28 August, the landlord confirmed that Ms K had been approved as a tenant and sent a letter to record the variation to the tenancy agreement (the variation letter). The letter recorded that Ms K would become a named tenant on the tenancy agreement, jointly and severally liable for the tenancy with Mr Singh. The parties were asked to confirm their acceptance by signing and returning the letter. They never did so. It appears that the second flatmate living at the premises, Ms H, did not apply to be a named tenant nor sign any change of tenancy document. At least, none was produced in evidence.
The variation letter sent to Mr Singh and Ms K did not record any agreement to extend the fixed term tenancy after it expired on 29 July nor to increase the rent. I asked the landlords whether they had documented this change and could provide evidence of it at the hearing. They were unable to do so.
On or about 27 October, Ms H moved out. Mr Singh called Mr Wilkins who, it seems, advised Mr Singh that as another fixed term was in place Mr Singh should find a replacement tenant.
On or about 31 October, Ms K moved out and stopped paying rent. She advised Mr Singh and the landlord that as she had never signed the variation letter nor any change of tenant documents, she considered that she was not liable as a named tenant under the tenancy agreement.
Mr Singh was concerned at this point about paying rent and asked the landlord if the tenancy could be ended. The landlord advised Mr Singh about the break lease process for a fixed term tenancy noting that tenants would be liable for rent until a replacement tenant was found, and break lease costs.
Mr Singh followed up with a further request to end the tenancy early by email on 12 November stating: “Just wondering if you’ve talked to the owners about ending of the lease earlier.” The landlord did not agree to end the tenancy.
On 5 December, Ms H contacted the landlord advising that she was a tenant who had moved out on 27 October and had been trying to find a replacement without success. She asked the landlords to send her the tenancy agreement because she had never seen a copy. She had only seen a change of tenant form. She also had questions about the break lease process.
The landlord advised Ms H by email the same day (copied to Mr Singh) that they had no record of her being a tenant and asked her to provide further information.
After Ms K and Ms H vacated the premises and stopped paying their rent, Mr Singh continued to pay the rent for several more months. He found flatmates to assist (who did not sign on as tenants) but, after being made redundant, he was unable to keep up resulting in the arrears which accrued from February 2025 onwards. As the arrears got worse, the landlord agreed to end the tenancy early on 10 June 2025 to mitigate their loss. The landlord’s case
The landlord submits that Mr Singh may be held solely liable for the rent arrears, and he agreed to a one-year extension of the fixed term, once the initial term expired on 29 July 2024.
The landlord believes that Mr Singh received all the relevant information and advice that they had given Ms P in the emails #1-9 above. He would have seen in the emails that the landlord had offered a one-year extension of the fixed term at an increased rent. In the various emails, the landlord explained the different options for ending or continuing the tenancy. The landlord also explained that the tenancy could be extended for one year or, if nothing was done by either party, it would roll over to a periodic tenancy that could be terminated by notice.
Following the above emails, Mr Singh signed the COT form becoming the sole tenant responsible for the tenancy obligations including payment of rent.
The other flatmates did not sign any documents agreeing to become tenants. Therefore, the landlords are pursuing Mr Singh only. Even if the other flatmates agreed to be tenants, they would be jointly and severally liable. This means that the landlord may choose to pursue one or all tenants in respect of a claim. In this case the landlord has chosen to pursue Mr Singh only, which they are entitled to do.
While the landlord was unable to produce an agreement recording the one-year tenancy extension or any document in which Mr Singh confirmed that he agreed to a one-year extension, they say that he affirmed his agreement to the extension by paying the increased rent. They also note that when he asked to end the tenancy early and was refused, he did not contest the landlord’s position. He is only now raising the issue that the tenancy may be periodic. The tenant’s case
Mr Singh was in India when Ms P was communicating with Mr Wilkins over the tenancy. He does not recall receiving the email thread (emails #1-7) on 15 July which mentions the offer of a 1-year extension at increased rent. When Ms P told him she was leaving and asked if he wanted to stay in the tenancy, he told her yes, if everyone else wanted to stay, he would stay.
In relation to the COT form that Ms P sent the landlord in which she was removed as a tenant and Mr Singh became the sole tenant, Mr Singh does not believe he signed that document. The signature looks like his, but he thinks it has been digitally copied. He had no other evidence to support this claim.
While Mr Singh agreed to stay in the tenancy, he thought that he and his two flatmates were all liable for the tenancy obligations such as rent. He had no idea that he was solely responsible and did not appreciate the difference between a periodic and fixed term tenancy. He also says he had not specifically agreed to an extension of the fixed term. He did not sign any documents agreeing to a one-year extension of the fixed term. He paid the increased rent because Ms P told him about the increase.
Mr Singh argues that the tenancy rolled over into a periodic tenancy. When he asked to end it, the landlord should have let him do so by giving 28 days’ notice as required for periodic tenancies at that time. He suggests that the landlord was wrong to represent that the fixed term had been extended.
When I asked Mr Singh why he did not bring an application to the Tribunal for a determination about the nature of the tenancy and contest the landlords claim that the fixed term was extended for a year, he said that he did not know that was an option. Discussion and findings

Can Mr Singh be held solely liable for rent arrears?

While there may be questions about how Ms P managed to obtain Mr Singh’s signature on the COT form (while he was in India) which had the effect of making him the sole named tenant from late June 2024, Mr Singh was unable to provide sufficient evidence to persuade me that his signature on the document was forged, or the document was forged in some manner. Notably, Ms P sent Mr Singh a copy of the email #9 dated 24 July 2024 to the landlord, in which she attached the COT form. Therefore, I find that he likely signed the COT and had notice of it being sent to the landlord.
Mr Singh thought he and his two flatmates would be jointly liable for the tenancy. He suggests that the COT did not represent his intention. While, he may not have appreciated the effect of the document, I am satisfied on the evidence that he signed it. A party is generally bound to any contract they have signed and there is only very limited ability to set aside a signed and written contract under the doctrine of “non est factum” (‘the writing is not his deed”). A very heavy burden of proof lies upon the person who raises this plea. They must establish that the signed contract was fundamentally different from what they believed it to be, and the mistake was not due to their negligence. There have been many cases where the courts have held that failing to read a contract or failing to understand the provisions of a contract when signing it and not getting independent advice as to what it means are not sufficient, as both involve some degree of negligence.
In summary, I find that Mr Singh became solely responsible as a signed tenant from 26 June 2024.
While Mr Singh’s flatmates may have agreed to become tenants jointly and severally liable for the tenancy, they did not sign any tenancy variation agreement nor a change of tenancy form. This does not necessarily mean they are not liable because section 13C RTA provides that no tenancy agreement, or variation or renewal of a tenancy agreement, shall be unenforceable simply on the grounds that it is not in writing.
However, the landlord has decided not to pursue Mr Singh’s flatmates for arrears because of the lack of documentation. As mentioned above, even where tenants are jointly and severally liable for the tenancy, the landlord is entitled to pursue one or all of them as in this case. If Mr Singh believes that his two flatmates should be liable as tenants for the arrears that accumulated, he could pursue them through the Disputes Tribunal for a contribution. The Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine disputes between tenants/flatmates.

Did Mr Singh agree to extend the fixed term?

When the fixed term was about to expire on 29 July 2024, section 60A (1) and (2) RTA (the version in force at the time) provided as follows: 60AFixed-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.
The effect of section 60A was that a periodic tenancy automatically rolled over to a periodic tenancy unless both parties explicitly agreed to renew or extend the existing tenancy, or agreed not to continue the tenancy, or one of the parties gave notice to end it on the expiry of the term. In other words, if the parties did nothing, the fixed term rolled into a periodic tenancy that could be terminated by notice.
Section 13B RTA provides that every variation of a tenancy agreement, and every renewal of a tenancy agreement, shall be in writing and signed by both the landlord and the tenant. However, as mentioned above, s13C provides that no variation or renewal of a tenancy agreement, shall be unenforceable on the grounds that it is not in writing.
I have carefully considered all the available evidence presented by the parties and I find that there is no evidence that Mr Singh at any stage agreed or confirmed that on the expiry of the fixed term on 29 July 2024, the fixed term would be extended for a further 12 months.
While the landlord clearly offered an extension at an increased rent by email #4 on 11 June 2024, the tenants did not confirm that it was accepted. Even in email #5 on 9 July the landlord noted that the tenants had not confirmed their intentions regarding the tenancy. The last email correspondence from the landlord concerning the offer of an extension was on 24 July, when the landlord again advised “I have not had any response in regard to an extension.” In subsequent emails, the focus shifted to the tenants who would be named on the tenancy agreement.
Once the landlord approved Ms K as a tenant, they sent her and Mr Singh a variation to the tenancy agreement on 28 August for signing. However, the variation does not record any offer or agreement to extend the fixed term.
The landlord argues that Mr Singh effectively affirmed the extension by his conduct in two respects: by paying the increased rental from 10 August 2024 and failing to contest the landlord’s advice in October/November 2024 that he could not terminate the tenancy on notice because the fixed term had been extended.
However, I am not persuaded by the landlord’s arguments. For a fixed term tenancy to be extended, there must be a clear agreement between both parties. Paying the rent increase is not by itself sufficient to establish the extension and Mr Singh explained that Ms P advised him that there would be a rent increase. Silence or a lack of objection to the landlord’s assertion that the fixed term had been extended is not, by itself, sufficient to establish that the tenant agreed to a new fixed term. The law requires a positive act of agreement, ideally in writing, or at a minimum, clear evidence of a mutual agreement. Evidence of mutual agreement would also need to be present before the initial term expired on 29 July 2024 as required in s60A(2)(a). The landlord’s assertion that the tenancy was fixed occurred approximately 2 months after that date.
Unless there is clear evidence that the tenant agreed to the extension (such as signing an agreement or explicitly confirming acceptance) the tenancy does not become a new fixed term simply because the landlord asserts it is and the tenant does not object. The default legal position in s60A(1) RTA is that the tenancy becomes periodic if the tenant stays on and no new fixed term is agreed before the expiry of the fixed term.
To summarise, in the absence of a written agreement or some other clear confirmation from the tenant to extend the fixed term before the tenancy expired, I find that this tenancy rolled over to a periodic tenancy on 30 July 2024. The fact that the tenant did not object to the landlord’s later assertion that the fixed term had been extended does not alter the position on 30 July 2024.

Did the landlord misrepresent the tenancy?

Two months after the tenancy rolled into a periodic tenancy, the landlord asserted that an extension had been agreed and rejected Mr Singh’s request to end the tenancy on notice when he asked about this by email on 12 November 2024. At that stage he could have given 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy.
I find that the landlord’s position was wrong and their failure to allow Mr Singh to terminate the tenancy on notice was wrong. This has resulted in Mr Singh continuing with the tenancy because he thought he had no choice. He thought he was unable to terminate the tenancy when he could no longer afford the rent which resulted in him continuing to pay rent and accruing substantial rent arrears.

Should the landlord be estopped from recovering all the rent arrears?

Mr Singh argues that the landlord should not be entitled to recover all the arrears, given their incorrect advice that he could not end the tenancy on notice.
The broad jurisdiction of the Tribunal in s85 provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
The Tribunal has held that section 85 confers an equitable jurisdiction on the Tribunal to apply the principles of estoppel. 1 Estoppel is the ability to raise an equitable claim or defence where – a. a belief or expectation has been created or encouraged through some action, representation or omission to act by the party against whom the estoppel is alleged; b. the belief or expectation has been reasonably relied on by the party alleging the estoppel; c. detriment has been caused because of that reliance; and d. it would be unconscionable for the party against whom the estoppel is alleged to depart from the belief or expectation. 2
The basis for a claim of estoppel in this case is that the tenant believed the landlord’s representation that the tenancy was fixed and could not be terminated by notice. In reliance on that belief, he stayed in the premises and suffered significant financial loss through continuing to pay rent and incurring arrears after he could have terminated the tenancy. 1 Lusk v Watson TT255/87, Palmerston North, 10 February 1998 2 See Equity and Trusts in New Zealand, 2 Ed, at 19.2, and Law of Contract in New Zealand, 7.Ed, at 4.6.2 and Gillies v Keogh [1989] 2NZLR 327 at 347 (Court of Appeal)
Estoppel cannot be claimed where the belief of a person in Mr Singh’s position is not reasonable as judged by the standard of a reasonable person in his position. In this case, I am satisfied that Mr Singh’s reliance on the representation was reasonable. The landlord is a professional and experienced property management company who is reasonably expected to have expertise and knowledge of the RTA. Mr Singh reasonably relied on their representation in those circumstances. He also acted to his detriment in not giving notice to end the tenancy, resulting in him continuing to pay rent and incur arrears which could have been prevented had he been able to end the tenancy on 28 days’ notice. In summary, I find the elements for estoppel in paragraphs 52 (a)-(c) above have been established.
The final consideration is unconscionability. The Tribunal’s overall conclusion is that Mr Singh ought to have been able to rely on what he had been told by Mr Wilkins about the tenancy, and it would be unconscionable to allow the landlord to recover all the rent arrears which occurred after the tenant could have lawfully ended the tenancy.
The next issue to determine is to what extent the landlord should be estopped from recovering the arrears which accrued.
Mr Singh asked about ending the tenancy in late October 2024 and documented his request in an email on 12 November 2024. He managed to pay the rent with some contributions from a flatmate for several months afterwards. However, the rent summary produced by the landlord shows that from 8 February 2025 until the tenancy ended on 10 June 2025, he was constantly in arrears.
During the hearing, Mr Singh said that he would be willing to pay one third of the rent arrears and/or release the bond of $3,080 to the landlord. One third of the rent is what he would have expected to pay if there were two other co- tenants as he had intended.
In this case I consider that both parties have contributed to the situation which occurred. The landlord was wrong in asserting that there was an extended fixed term. However, the tenant also failed to seek advice and take proactive steps to address the situation. He could have brought an application to the Tribunal much sooner for a declaration about the nature of the tenancy and mitigated the loss which occurred. Section 49 RTA provides that where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, 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.
Given that both parties have contributed to the situation, I find that they should both bear the loss which occurred. There are several ways this could be approached. However, I consider the following factors. The tenant asked to end the tenancy at least by 12 November 2024. Had he given notice at that time, the tenancy could have been ended by mid to end of December 2024. However, Mr Singh was able to keep rent up to date until 7 February 2025. From 8 February onwards he fell into continuous arrears. Had he known he could do so, he would likely have given notice to end the tenancy at least by 8 February 2025.
The rent payable from 8 February 2025 until the tenancy ended on 10 June 2025 was $14,057.14. I consider Mr Singh should be responsible for one half of that rent being $7,028.57 and the landlord should wear the other half. Mr Singh made payments of $5,600 which means he is liable to pay a further $1,428.57 which may be deducted from the bond. The landlord has already received the full bond refund of $3,080 which means that they must reimburse Mr Singh the balance bond of $1,651.43.
I consider that the above is a fair and equitable remedy but also recognises the fault of both parties.
As the landlord has not substantially succeeded with their application, I do not award reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5268999 — Tenancy dispute at 10a Cavendish Square, Strathmore Park, Wellington 6022

Tenancy Tribunal case 5268999 — Tenancy dispute at 10a Cavendish Square, Strathmore Park, Wellington 6022

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the rent arrears?

Can Mr Singh be held solely liable for rent arrears?

Did Mr Singh agree to extend the fixed term?

Did the landlord misrepresent the tenancy?

Should the landlord be estopped from recovering all the rent arrears?

Property management

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the rent arrears?

Can Mr Singh be held solely liable for rent arrears?

Did Mr Singh agree to extend the fixed term?

Did the landlord misrepresent the tenancy?

Should the landlord be estopped from recovering all the rent arrears?

Property management

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.