What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5303700 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 5303700?

Compensation: Carpark misrepresentat…: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of heating amenit…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5303700?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5303700?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12790752-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5303700 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 5303700?

Compensation: Carpark misrepresentat…: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Loss of heating amenit…: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5303700?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5303700?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12790752-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 907, 166 Victoria Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5303700 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5303700 — net $2,928.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Carpark misrepresentation	$1,500.00	Carpark misrepresentation
Compensation: Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide heating	$1,000.00	Failure to provide heating
Compensation: Loss of heating amenity	$300.00	Loss of heating amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,928.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,928.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5303700 — net $2,928.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Carpark misrepresentation	$1,500.00	Carpark misrepresentation
Compensation: Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Exemplary damages: Failure to provide heating	$1,000.00	Failure to provide heating
Compensation: Loss of heating amenity	$300.00	Loss of heating amenity
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,928.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,928.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Tommy's Property Management Limited As Agent For Messines Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $2,928.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This was a fixed term tenancy that started on 8 November 2024 and ended on 6 November 2025.
The tenants seek compensation and/or exemplary damages in relation to the following claims: a. Misrepresentation as to the carpark being let with the apartment; b. Vehicle damage caused by unsafe parking ramp; c. Breach of quiet enjoyment; d. Non-functioning shower; e. Failure to provide heating initially and then failure to repair provided heating in a reasonable time frame; and f. Failure to provide premises in reasonably clean condition.

Did the landlord misrepresent which carpark was let with the apartment?

Facts and evidence

The tenants shifted to Wellington from Napier. Mrs T was shown these premises by a letting agent, on 5 November 2024. The premises are an apartment in a multi-storey apartment building along with a carpark located on a separate parking floor of the building. Mrs T advised the property manager that she wished to view the carpark being let with the apartment as she wished to make sure it was suitable for their large car. Mrs T was shown a ground floor carpark number 3 and assured that this was the carpark assigned to the apartment. Mrs T had brought a tape measure to the viewing and measured the carpark with the assistance of the agent. Mrs T also took a photo of the carpark and sent it via WhatsApp message to her husband, Mr T, the same day which was produced in evidence.
The parties signed a tenancy agreement for the premises after the viewing, also on 5 November. The tenancy agreement does not refer to the carpark. However, on 6 November 2024 the landlord sent the entry condition report to the tenants for them to review and sign within 14 days. The report included photos of the apartment including carpark number 51. The tenants say they did not notice the carpark number and they did not sign and return the report.
When the tenants moved into the apartment on 8 November 2024, they were told that the carpark assigned to them was on the third floor, numbered 51. The tenants have a large Lexus RX, SUV which is their main car that they wished to park in the building. They also have a second smaller Toyota Prius which they parked in cheaper space in Porirua. They claim that the driveway ramp to the third floor was extremely narrow, steep and tight making it nearly impossible to use with their large vehicle. More importantly, they say that they made it clear to the property manager at the viewing that having the ground floor carpark shown to them at the viewing was a key factor in deciding to rent the apartment. The fact that Mrs T measured the park and took a photo of it at the viewing supports that claim.
On 14 November, Mrs T sent an email to the property manager, KP Ananthoju raising the carpark (and other issues) as follows: “1. Garage—it seems we overlooked how narrow the driveway to the parking space is. Unfortunately, we have already scratched our car [the Prius] and my husband’s car [the Lexus] cannot fit through the driveway. As you know, the size of the parking space was extremely important to us, and I even brought a tape measure to check. However, I did not notice the narrow driveway. This issue is very upsetting and we feel blindsided, as we would not have proceeded with renting the place if we knew we can’t fit our main car through the driveway up to lvl 3. Now we have no choice but to stay, but we have to pay extra to secure a safe parking space for my husband’s car. The reason we specifically sought an apartment with parking was for his car; otherwise, we could have rented another place (cheaper) and parked in public car parks. This was a deal breaker for us and, unfortunately, we didn’t notice it on the viewing day. Is there a chance we could get one of the parking ports on the ground floor? We might have to end the tenancy earlier as parking our main car in an outside public carpark is not sustainable......KP we appreciate that the apartment is relatively nice and tidy and well- maintained. The garage situation is a deal breaker and we would be grateful if you could find a solution for it”
While the email sent by Mrs T suggests that she “overlooked” and ‘didn’t notice” the tight driveway to the carpark, the tenants subsequently realised from the photo taken on the viewing day, that the carpark shown to Mrs T, which the agent assured her would be assigned to this tenancy, was on the ground floor and access via the ramp was not required at all. On that basis, they claim the agent misrepresented the carpark assigned to the apartment which was of vital importance to them.
KP responded to the tenants noting that this was the first time they had received a complaint of this nature regarding the carpark. However, he and another manager from Tommy’s, Harrison Vaughan, both visited the premises on or about 20 November. They met Mr T at the garage driving up to the third floor in a Nissan Ute to demonstrate that a large vehicle could safely use the ramp to park on level 3. In the end, they advised that there was little they could do other then try to find another carpark, if one became available.
KP also advised that when he spoke to the letting agent, she told him that she had shown Mrs T the correct carpark. However, she no longer works for Tommy’s and was not available as a witness.
The tenants allege that Mr Vaughan later advised Mrs T at a meeting in his office that if they were unhappy with the situation they could move out. The tenants put up with the situation but after several months approached the landlord on 2 July 2025 to end the tenancy early (on 2 weeks’ notice) because of the ongoing inconvenience and costs incurred for off-site parking. They say that the landlord then reneged on their earlier offer in which the tenants could end the tenancy with the landlord requiring the tenants to follow the break lease process or find suitable replacement tenants. This would mean the tenants would be liable for rent until new tenants were found.
Mr Vaughan gave evidence that he recalls advising the tenants at the meeting in the carpark area on 20 November 2024 words to the effect: “If you are not happy with the carpark and you can come to us in the next week with a suitable offer (to rent elsewhere and end this tenancy) then we will look at it”. He explained at the hearing, that there had been several groups interested in the apartment when it was advertised for let in November 2024. Therefore, he indicated to the tenants that they would look at releasing them from the tenancy if the tenants wished to do that quickly as they would likely be able to rent the premises to another interested group. The offer was not for an open-ended period.
After their request for early termination in July 2025, the tenants advised that they had found another property to rent. Eventually, the landlord offered to end the tenancy in six weeks’ time but the tenants said the offer was too late and they had already declined the new tenancy which was to start in 4 weeks’ time. The landlord again offered to look at releasing the tenants in 4 weeks and suggested that they check whether the tenancy they found was still available. However, the tenants rejected the offer and advised that they would continue this tenancy until the expiry date on 6 November. Law on misrepresentation
Section 78(1)(g) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal may make an order varying, or setting aside an agreement where it appears to the Tribunal that it has been induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake. Section 78(1)(h) RTA also enables the Tribunal to make any other order that the High Court or the District Court may make under any enactment or rule of law relating to contracts.
The law regarding misrepresentation is now largely codified in sections 35 and 37 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA), although the common law remains relevant. Under s35 CCLA, if a party (party A) to a contract has been induced to enter it by a misrepresentation, whether innocent or fraudulent, made by another party (party B) to the contract, party A is entitled to damages from that party B in the same manner and to the same extent as if the representation were a term of the contract that has been broken.
The representation must be one of fact, not opinion. The representation must be false, and it must relate to a matter of present or past facts, including “half- truths”, not one which relates to the future. See the commentary in Gault on Commercial Law 1 and the Court of Appeal decision in Savill v NZI Finance Ltd. 2 1 Gault on Commercial Law (online looseleaf ed, Thomson Reuters)
If there is a misrepresentation, the other matters which must be proved by the tenant are: a. The misrepresentation must have induced the tenant to enter into the agreement, and the tenant must have acted reasonably in relying on, and therefore, being induced by the misrepresentation; b. The landlord must have intended to induce the tenant to enter the agreement, or the representation must have been such as would induce a normal person to contract. 3 Discussion and findings on misrepresentation
After carefully considering all the available evidence, I find that the letting agent showed Mrs T carpark 3 on the ground floor at the viewing and represented to her that this carpark would be let with the apartment. I am not persuaded that she showed Mrs T the carpark numbered 51 on level 3. Mrs T’s photo of the carpark taken at the viewing and sent to Mr T via WhatsApp message the same day corroborates her evidence. The fact that it is possible to drive a large car and park it on level 3 (as demonstrated by the property managers) is irrelevant when considering whether there was a misrepresentation. In summary, I find that the letting agent misrepresented the carpark assigned to this tenancy.
Having found a misrepresentation, I am also satisfied that the tenants were induced to enter the tenancy agreement because of the misrepresentation. Again, Mrs T’s evidence was that she explained to the letting agent that she wished to ensure the carpark would fit their larger vehicle. The fact that Mrs T took a photo of the carpark and measured it shows how important the size and location of it was to the tenants. They were quick to raise this issue with the landlord after moving in and explained that this would have been a “deal breaker” had they realised the assigned carpark was on level 3. Had they been told the carpark was on level 3 and seen the ramp access, they would have looked at renting cheaper premises and paid for public parking.
I am also satisfied that it was entirely reasonable for the tenant to rely on and accept the information received from the letting agent about the carpark. No other information identifying the carpark was provided prior to their signing the tenancy agreement on 5 November. The entry report with a photo of the carpark was only provided after the agreement was signed.
Given the obvious importance of the carpark size and location to the tenants, I also find that, while the landlord likely did not intend to induce the tenants to enter the agreement, the representation would induce a normal person (with the tenants carparking requirements) to contract into the tenancy agreement. 2 Savill v NZI Finance Ltd [1990] 3 NZLR 135 3 Savill v NZI Finance Ltd, above n2
In summary, the tenants have proved all the elements required to establish misrepresentation by the landlords which induced them to sign the tenancy agreement. Therefore, I consider whether the tenant is entitled to compensation/damages for the misrepresentation. Compensation/damages
It is a well-accepted principle when awarding damages that, so far as money can do it, the injured party shall be put in the same position they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach.
It is also a requirement of s49 RTA that where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or the RTA, the other party takes all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
The tenants seek the costs of renting another carpark space for their larger car at a cost of $199/month, or $2,388 for the period of the tenancy and provided proof of the costs. I accept that this is a reasonable basis for calculating the loss suffered as a consequence of the misrepresentation.
The landlord did offer the tenants an “out” at the start of the tenancy if they found another property to rent in a week or so. However, I also accept that this was likely not a practical or easy solution given that they had already shifted from Napier and moved into the apartment. Whether they could have found another apartment to rent in such a short time frame is uncertain.
When the tenants approached the landlord 8 months later in July 2025 to break the lease early, I accept that the landlords did eventually agree to end the tenancy earlier, first on 6 weeks and then 4 weeks’ notice. This was rejected by the tenants on the basis that the offer came too late after they had declined the offer of a new tenancy. However, I find that in several email exchanges between the parties, the landlord made reasonable offers to end the tenancy early which the tenants declined thereby failing to mitigate their losses (the extra carpark costs) as follows: 9 July at 15.34—Tenants ask the landlord to re-consider letting them break the lease on 2 weeks” notice; 10 July at 9.50—Landlord replies advising that they are prepared to end the tenancy on 20 August; 11 July at 00.13—Tenants reply that on 10 July they declined an offer of a new tenancy to start in 4 weeks’ time because of the landlord’s responses. This is the first time they advise the landlord of another tenancy offer; 11 July at 8.28—Landlord advises that if the new rental offer is still viable, the landlord would consider ending tenancy on 4 weeks’ notice; 11 July at 8.53—Tenants reiterate that they have declined the new tenancy offer; 11 July at 9.26—Landlords say they will work on obtaining owners consent to 4 weeks’ notice and suggest the tenants check whether the new rental is still available; 11 July at 10.06—Tenants decline the break lease offer and advise that they will continue the tenancy until the expiry.
I consider that the tenants decision to reject the landlord’s offer to end the tenancy early on 4 weeks’ notice means that they failed to mitigate their loss from that point onwards. They also took no steps to apply to the Tribunal for termination of the tenancy, filing this application on 15 July for compensation and exemplary damages only. For those reasons, I consider that the extra costs of carparking they claim should not be awarded beyond 20 August 2025, being the date the landlord offered as an early termination date. 10 months of carparking fees incurred by the tenants until August 2025 is approximately $1990.
However, evidence was provided that the tenants have been parking their second car in the carpark, which presumably saved them from paying public parking rates for that car. Therefore, compensation for any extra carparking costs should take this into account.
Taking all factors into consideration, I award the tenants $1,500 which I consider is a reasonable amount to compensate them for extra parking costs and the inconvenience caused by the carpark misrepresentation. Is the landlord liable for damage to the tenants’ vehicle because of the misrepresentation?
Early on in the tenancy, when driving their smaller car up the driveway ramp to carpark 51, it was damaged by a piece of metal protruding from the ramp. The tenants allege this was due to the cramped and hazardous configuration of the carpark ramp and the turning angles. They say this would not have happened if they had been allocated the ground floor carpark as represented and it is a consequence of the misrepresentation.
The importance of the carpark representation to the tenants was so that they could park their larger Lexus car easily. The same concern does not apply to their smaller car. Therefore, the damage is too remote to be a foreseeable consequence flowing from the misrepresentation for which compensation would be payable.
Furthermore, the tenants chose to drive the car up the ramp and use the carpark, and it is not proved whether the damage caused was due to the ramp or may also be attributable to driver error. In those circumstances, I find that the landlord is not liable for the damage. Has the landlord breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment?
Section 38(2) RTA provides that a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $2,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenants claim that the landlord repeatedly interfered with the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premises because of their dismissive responses and refusals to acknowledge the misrepresentation about the carpark; their refusal to allow termination of the tenancy early when requested in July 2025 which the tenants believe contradicted the landlord’s offer that the tenants could terminate the tenancy in November 2024; and the emotional stress caused by the situation at a time when Mrs T had suffered a miscarriage.
The tenants seek exemplary damages. Therefore, they must prove that the landlord has breached their quiet enjoyment in the use of the premises in circumstances that amount to harassment.
Generally, a personality clash, a difference of opinion or disagreement does not of itself amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment. While it can impact on reasonable peace and comfort in a significant way, more is needed to prove the landlord is liable for a breach of quiet enjoyment regarding the use of the premises.
I have considered the communications between the parties as presented both in their oral and written evidence. The landlord did not agree that there had been a misrepresentation about the carpark but that dispute is not in my view sufficient to amount to harassment. In any event, the compensation awarded above addresses the impact of the carpark misrepresentation on the tenants. Similarly, the landlords contend, and I accept, that their early offer in November 2024 to release the tenants from the tenancy was not open-ended and was conditional on the tenants acting quickly to find another tenancy within a week or so, which they did not do. Therefore, I do not find that the landlord’s response to the tenants request for early termination in July 2025 was inconsistent with the earlier offer and nor does it amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment or harassment.
There is also no basis under the RTA to consider exemplary damages for the carpark misrepresentation as sought by the tenants in their application. That is because misrepresentation is not a specified unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded as set out in schedule 1A RTA.
For the above reasons, the claim for exemplary damages due to breach of quiet enjoyment/harassment is dismissed.

Has the landlord breached their cleaning, maintenance, and heating obligations?

Cleaning

Under section 45(1)(a) RTA, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. The tenants provided photos taken at the start of the tenancy proving that some areas of the premises were not reasonably clean. The washing machine plastic ring around the door and the soap dispenser was covered in mould and soap scum. The shower floor, walls and tiles were also covered in mould and scum. They seek compensation for the extra cleaning they had to complete at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord says the property was cleaned before the tenancy started and some of the tiles in the bathroom are permanently stained, but overall the cleaning issues raised were minor. However, I am satisfied that the claim is proved and award the tenants $100 for cleaning. Shower head
Under section 45(1)(b) RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenants advised the landlord that the shower in one of the two bathrooms was defective in that the shower head was a fixed head that sprayed water directly onto the wall and was fixed too high up the wall making it unusable for Mrs T. They asked for it to be changed to a removable shower head similar to the one in the main bathroom.
The landlord raised a work order for the shower to be assessed. The contractor advised that there was no defect with the shower head as it was working as designed. Replacing it with a removeable shower head would require major plumbing work including removal of the wall tiles. Given that the shower head was not faulty, this was not considered a maintenance matter requiring remedy.
I accept the landlord’s submission that the shower is not faulty and there is no basis for replacing it. The claim is dismissed. Heating
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(bb) RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For this tenancy, the premises must comply within 120 days of the commencement of the tenancy, being 8 March 2025.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Prior to the HHS heating standard coming into effect the landlord’s obligation to provide heating is contained in the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR). Regulation 6 provides: every living room shall be fitted with a fireplace and chimney or other approved form of heating.
Breaching the heating obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A). No heating at start of tenancy
In this case, there was no heating provided at the start of the tenancy. The tenants asked the landlord about this in their email dated 14 November 2024. The landlord replied on 18 November stating: “For the apartment, there is no requirement to have a fixed source of heating. However, we are getting a wall mounted heater panel installed.”
The landlord had issued a work order on 15 November for a healthy homes assessment. An inspection was conducted on 21 November which determined the required heating capacity for the living room and a compliant heater was installed and signed off by the Healthy Homes assessor on 9 December 2025.
While I find that the landlord complied with the HHS heating standard in the required timeframe, the failure by the landlord to provide any heating initially is a breach of the HIR and an unlawful act.
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 interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell 4 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.
The District Court has said the requirement of intention is not about whether the party was aware they were breaching the RTA. Rather, it is about whether they acted intentionally i.e. whether they intended to do whatever it was they did or did not do. 5 It is not open to the landlord to plead confusion, lack of knowledge, or ignorance of the law. In TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl 6 , where the landlord claimed not to be fully aware of his obligations, the District Court held: “Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequences for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law.”
I am satisfied that the matter of intention is proved, and the landlords knew (or ought to have known) that the heating did not comply with the HIR at the tenancy start date.
After considering all the relevant factors in s109, I have determined that an award of $1000 exemplary damages is appropriate which at the lower end of the scale. That is because, I am satisfied that the issue was remedied quickly and I am not aware that the landlord has committed a similar breach previously. However, the award also reflects that an experienced landlord who is in the business of managing multiple tenancies ought to know and ensure compliance with all residential tenancy legal requirements. Heating repairs
The tenants also complain that the heating stopped working which they reported to the landlord on 15 April 2025. An electrician was sent to test the heater on 16 April and reported that it was faulty. The heating was finally repaired, 3 weeks 4 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 5 Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00, DC Auckland,1/5/2001 6 TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 later, by 7 May. The tenants seek compensation for the loss of amenity which caused serious discomfort.
Regulation 6 HHS privies that a landlord must ensure that all installed or provided things under the HHS are maintained in good working order; or if they cannot be maintained in good working order, are replaced within a reasonable time.
I accept that 3 weeks to repair the heating was not reasonable in the circumstances and the tenants should be compensated for the loss of amenity. I award $300 which I consider is reasonable. I do not consider an award of exemplary damages is justified given that the landlord immediately issued a work order for the repair and I do not find that they committed an intentional breach.
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and granted suppression of their names and identifying details as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5303700 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 907, 166 Victoria Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5303700 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 907, 166 Victoria Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord misrepresent which carpark was let with the apartment?

Has the landlord breached their cleaning, maintenance, and heating obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord misrepresent which carpark was let with the apartment?

Has the landlord breached their cleaning, maintenance, and heating obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions