What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341914 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 5341914?

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 5341914?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341914?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12843677-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341914 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 5341914?

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 5341914?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341914?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12843677-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

8 Taungata Road, York Bay, Lower Hutt 5013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5341914 — Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details.
Martin Burley and Ruth Burley must pay [The tenant/s] $2,611.10 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The tenants have applied for the following: a. Exemplary damages for failing to provide a copy of the full tenancy agreement and assignment agreement; b. Exemplary damages for failing to provide a Healthy Homes Compliance statement; c. Exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond; d. Compensation for lawns and gardening work; e. Reimbursement of costs to remove chattels.
The landlords have claims against the bond, but did not file a counterclaim with Tenancy Services. Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim, otherwise the bond should be refunded in full to the tenants. However, because the tenants were fully aware of the landlords’ claims, I am allowing the landlords to bring them without lodging a cross application. The landlords have applied for compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal and repairs.

Did the landlord provide the tenants with a copy of the tenancy agreement?

The tenants claim the landlord did not provide a full copy of the tenancy agreement to them until after the tenancy ended.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing (whether or not the tenant has signed it). See section 13 RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlords prepared a tenancy agreement with a start date of 3 August 2024 which they signed on 29 July 2024 and then emailed to the tenants for electronic signature. The tenants countersigned the agreement on 30 July 2024 and returned it to the landlords. The tenancy agreement is the standard form agreement from Tenancy Services. The pages included in the tenancy agreement were: a. pages 1-7 (with page 6 being the signing page); b. pages 8-23 being the Healthy Homes Standards Compliance Statement. However, this statement was not filled out or signed by the landlord. c. pages 24-25 being the Property Inspection Report which had not been filled out or signed by either party. However, it is designed to be filled out with the tenant at the start of the tenancy. The notes on the report state: “This should be used to record the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy. The landlord and the tenant should fill out this form together, and tick the appropriate box if the condition is acceptable or record any damage or defects.”
On 3 August 2024, one of the tenants met the landlord, Ruth Burley, at the premises for handover of the keys and walk through of the property. Mrs Burley had a hard copy of the property inspection report to record the condition of the property as they walked around. The report is signed by Mrs Burley and one of the tenants with both signatures dated 3 August 2024. Only page 25 of this report (with the signing clause) was produced in evidence.
The tenants say they never received a copy of the full tenancy agreement including the completed property inspection report during the tenancy. On or about 24 August 2025, after the tenancy ended, one of the tenants sent Mr Burley an email requesting a full copy of the tenancy agreement. Mr Burley replied by email on 26 August 2025 sending page 25 (the second page of the property inspection report) stating: “This is the only part I kept. The rest of the document can be found online. I don’t [sic] its changed at all since August last year.”
I accept on the evidence that the tenants were provided with a copy of the tenancy agreement (pages 1-23) signed by the landlord. Therefore the landlords discharged their duty under s13. The tenants also signed a copy electronically which continued to be available to them online.
I accept that the tenants were not provided with a copy of the completed property inspection report because there was no evidence that the landlord either handed or emailed them a copy. However, completion of the report (on pages 24 and 25 of the tenancy agreement form used by the landlord) is not a requirement under the RTA. Section 13A RTA sets out the information that must be provided in a tenancy agreement, and the property inspection report is not included. While it is best practice to complete a property inspection report and send a copy to the tenant, there is no statutory requirement for it to be provided before or after the tenancy starts, nor for it to be included in the agreement itself. Furthermore, the property inspection report is designed to be completed “at the start of the tenancy” as it states on the form. It is not intended to be completed “prior to the tenancy” when a copy of the signed tenancy agreement must be provided to the tenant under s 13 RTA.
In summary, I find that the tenants were provided with a copy of the tenancy agreement signed by the landlord before the tenancy started. The fact that the landlord did not provide them with a copy of the subsequent property inspection report is not a breach of the RTA and the claim must be dismissed.

Did the landlord provide a Healthy Homes Compliance statement?

Under section 13A(1A) RTA, a landlord must include a signed statement in the tenancy agreement that provides the following information: a. whether or not insulation is installed in any ceilings, walls and floors, and b. details of the location, type and condition of all insulation installed.
Alternatively, if the landlord is unable to provide some or all of the information required, they must include a statement explaining what information cannot be obtained, why it cannot be, and that all reasonable efforts have been made to do so. See section 13A(1B) and (1C) RTA.
In addition, the landlord must also include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the landlord, that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) RTA including the information prescribed by the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS). See section 13A(1CA) RTA.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(1F)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Martin Burley and Ruth Burley is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be considered.
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, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to the following factors in s109 RTA: 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 District Court has said the requirement of intention is not about whether the party was aware they were breaching the Act. Rather, it is about whether they acted intentionally i.e. whether they intended to do whatever it was they did or did not do (Parton v Fifita TT 1815/00, DC Auckland,1/5/2001).
A landlord cannot plead confusion, lack of knowledge, or ignorance of the law. In TMT New Zealand Limited T/A Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182, 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.”
Mr Burley says that the home is HHS compliant and he did not complete the statement due to pressure of work.
I am satisfied that the matter of intention is proved in this case because the landlords prepared the tenancy agreement containing the HHS compliance statement knowing that it was left blank and did not contain any of the information required by law.
It is of significant interest to tenants and the public that landlords comply with their HHS obligations. Considering the factors in s 109, I have determined that it is just to make an award of exemplary damages for the breach of $250. The award is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware that the landlord has committed a breach of this nature previously.

Did the landlord document the change of tenant?

The tenants say that the landlords failed to document a change of tenant which caused stress and confusion over the status of each tenant and their liability for the tenancy obligations. They seek exemplary damages for the failure.
Section 13B RTA provides that every variation of a tenancy agreement, shall be in writing and signed by both the landlord and the tenant. The landlord must also before the date on which the variation is to take effect, provide the tenant with a copy of the variation. A breach of s13B is not an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be considered. Therefore, the claim for exemplary damages cannot succeed and must be dismissed.
However, for the benefit of all parties and to ensure they understand what is required in future, I have considered the complaint and the liability of each tenant.
The tenants requested the landlords’ approval for one of the tenants to be replaced by a new tenant for the remainder of the fixed term. The continuing tenant had also indicated that the new tenant would sign the tenancy agreement and be jointly and severally liable for the tenancy obligations. Once a new tenant was found, Mr Burley approved of the change. He sent the new tenant and the continuing tenant an email on 30 March 2025 confirming the main terms of the tenancy. However, he ended this by stating: “Nothing to sign unless [continuing tenant] wishes to add you to the agreement.”
On 5 April the departing tenant asked Mr Burley by text to send through the paperwork so that she could be taken off the tenancy and the new tenant could be signed on. Mr Burley replied saying “Consider yourself removed. We will have a new one in place very soon.”
On 7 April the departing tenant completed and signed a request for assignment of the tenancy to the new tenant to take effect from 10 April. The continuing tenant sent this to Mr Burley. I note that an assignment is a transfer of the entire tenancy to someone else. The change of tenant in this case is not an assignment but a variation of the tenancy agreement.
A bond inspection was completed by the landlord between the change of tenants on 10 April, and the new tenant paid the departing tenant her share of the bond.
Despite indicating in communications that he would complete the paperwork to document the variation, Mr Burley never did so. Mr Burley stated at the hearing that he did not think the paperwork was necessary because the change was clear from the communications, and not long after the tenants advised that they would be moving out at the end of the fixed term.
The wording of section 13B RTA does not specify who must document the change of tenant and simply states that a variation must be in writing signed by the landlord and the tenant. This is different to the wording of s13 which says that the landlord must ensure that a tenancy agreement is in writing. Responsibility for documenting a change of tenant lies with all the parties involved: the landlord, the departing tenant, the continuing tenant and the new tenant. They must all sign an agreement to record the change and the date it is to take effect to avoid any dispute about who is liable for the tenancy obligations. There is a change of tenant form on the Tenancy Services website that can be used and then lodged with the Bond Centre.
I accept that Mr Burley agreed to document the change of tenants and did not do so adequately. Mr Burley should have prepared a written agreement (or used the form available on the Tenancy Services website) to formally document the change of tenants for signing by all parties. Mr Burley’s indication to the departing tenant that she should consider herself released from the tenancy without first ensuring all parties signed a formal agreement to document the change was careless. A landlord cannot release a tenant from a fixed term tenancy without the agreement of the remaining/continuing tenant who will continue to be liable for the obligations of the tenancy. If a landlord releases a tenant without the agreement of the continuing tenant, the continuing tenant might reasonably argue that they are not solely liable for the tenancy obligations (e.g. such as payment of the full amount of the rent). Where the continuing tenant also wishes to ensure that the new tenant is jointly and severally liable for the obligations of the tenancy for the remainder of the term, the new tenant must also agree. Documenting the change in writing for everyone to sign is important to ensure there is no dispute about each party’s liability under the tenancy.
Despite the lack of a formal variation document, I find that the communications between the parties and the fact of the bond inspection on 10 April, establish that by mutual agreement: a. the departing tenant and the continuing tenant were liable for the tenancy obligations up to 10 April, with the departing tenant released from her obligations after that date; and, b. the new tenant and the continuing tenant were liable for the tenancy obligations from 11 April for the remainder of the term.
The new tenant was not joined as a party to this application, and as discussed at the hearing, the tenants may need to account to her for the awards made in this application bearing in mind my findings about each tenant’s period of liability.

Did the landlord lodge the bond with the Bond Centre?

There is no dispute that the landlords did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre during the tenancy. Mr Burley says this was an oversight on his part. However, he admitted at the hearing that he realised the bond had not been lodged when the change of tenancy occurred in April 2025 and he still did not lodge the bond because he was advised that the tenants were intending to vacate when the fixed term ended on 3 August 2025. The landlords also deducted amounts from the bond after the tenancy ended despite the tenants disputing some of the landlords’ claims.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlords have committed an unlawful act by failing to lodge the bond. I consider an award for exemplary damages bearing in mind the applicable considerations set out in paragraphs 18-21 above.
I am satisfied that the matter of intention in terms of s109 has been established in that the landlord has failed to adopt a robust accounting process to ensure that the bond was paid to the Bond Centre. A landlord ought to know that if they do not have good processes, failing to lodge the bond is a likely consequence. For that reason, Mr Burley saying that the failure was an oversight is not an acceptable excuse.
What is worse is that Mr Burley did not take steps to lodge the bond once he became aware that it had not been lodged in April 2025 (4 months before the tenancy ended). He then proceeded to deduct funds from the bond after the tenancy ended without the tenants’ agreement. These are aggravating features.
Bond money belongs to a tenant, and it is of significant interest to both tenants and the public that the money is held securely with the Bond Centre during the tenancy and that landlords comply with their obligations under the Act. It is also in the interests of tenants and the public that the bond is lodged with the Bond Centre promptly as a protection against a landlord’s unreasonable retention of it.
Taking all the above factors into account I order exemplary damages of $750.00 to be paid by the landlord to the tenants. This is 50% of the maximum penalty available. Usually, the Tribunal would make an award at the lower end of the scale (up to 33% of the maximum) if there is no evidence of a prior breach by the landlord as in this case. However, I consider a higher award is justified because of the aggravating features present: that the landlord did not lodge the bond once he was aware it had not been lodged, and he deducted funds from the bond unilaterally after the tenancy ended.

Is the landlord liable to compensate the tenants for gardening work?

The tenancy agreement provided to the tenants (excluding the property inspection report completed on the first day of the tenancy) did not state who is responsible for gardening and lawns. The well accepted principle is that if the tenancy agreement is silent, tenants are responsible for keeping the property, including lawns and gardens, reasonably clean and tidy. This is based on the tenant’s general obligations under section 40(1)(c) of the RTA, which requires tenants to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. However, the tenants say that Mr Burley advised them before signing the tenancy that the landlords maintained the lawns and gardens.
At the start of the tenancy, the landlords messaged the tenants twice in August 2024 to advise that they would come and do the lawns. On occasion the lawns were too wet and muddy and could not be mowed. Towards the end of August the landlords advised the tenants that they would be overseas for all of September. The tenants offered to mow the lawns in their absence. On their return in early October, the landlords again messaged the tenants to advise that they would come and mow the lawns. About this time, the landlords conducted the first quarterly inspection and the tenants suggested that they maintain the gardens and the lawns. They asked Mr Burley if there would be a rent discount if they took over this work. He said yes but never gave them a figure.
In or about January/February 2025, the tenants sent Mr Burley a text message about the rent rate which led to the following exchanges: Tenants to landlord: “We’re a little confused as you and Ruth were coming around for gardens at the beginning of the tenancy, however, since that stopped we haven’t had a change but there was mention of a discounted rate? Landlord to tenants: “You’re correct. That was discounted for the previous tenants. And you agreed to keep it going. So no change, unless you wish to reverse that. Apologies for the confusion. Tenants to landlord: “Nah no worries! We just want to make sure we’re on the same page....[tenant] likes doing the gardens...” Tenants to landlord: “Hey Martin, regarding your message. Is our rent at a discounted rate due to self-maintenance of the backyard?” Landlord to tenants: “That’s correct.” Tenants to landlord: “Oh. I don’t think we knew that hahaha. What would be the non-discounted rate? Just out of curiosity?” The landlord did not reply.
After the tenancy ended and the tenants requested a copy of the tenancy agreement, Mr Burley sent the last page of the property inspection report completed by Mrs Burley which the tenants had not previously been provided. In the General Section, Mrs Burley wrote as follows:
It is clearly written that the landlords would do the gardening and the lawns. Therefore, the tenants argue that the rent rate was not already discounted in consideration for them maintaining gardens and lawns as represented by Mr Burley. They seek reimbursement accordingly at a rate of $30/week.
Mr Burley says he forgot to tell his wife that the tenants were to do the lawns and gardens and her notation on the report is an error. He also argues that in pre- tenancy negotiations, the tenants agreed to do the lawns and gardens in exchange for the landlord agreeing to let them use the sleep out and one of the sheds on the property. However, I have reviewed the text messages between the parties and find that the sleep out was included with the premises and the agreement to use the shed “clinched the deal” to enter the tenancy. No mention was made in the negotiations about the tenants maintaining the lawns and gardens in return for using these other buildings. I am satisfied that the landlords clearly recorded in writing that they would do the lawns and gardens and, consistent with that, they attended the premises for that purpose initially.
I accept that the Mr Burley agreed to the tenants taking over this work at the first quarterly inspection but never reduced the rent as promised. When the tenants later queried him about this he gave them the impression, the rent was already discounted but the contents of the property inspection report disclosed to the tenants after the tenancy ended proves otherwise. Evidence given at the hearing was that the landlords would have charged $25-$30/week for lawns and gardens.
The tenants seek compensation of $30/week for 43 weeks covering the month of September 2024 when the landlords were away and from November 2024 until the tenancy ended on 3 August 2025 which totals $1,290. They also seek $100 operating costs for the mower and weed eater (petrol, oil and trimming line). I consider the weekly compensation sought is fair but should be inclusive of operating costs and I award $1,290.
At the end of the tenancy, Mr Burley asked the tenants to weed the front garden. The tenants paid for a professional gardener to do this at a cost of $307.05 which they wish to recover from the landlords. Given that the tenants have been awarded compensation for gardening work during the tenancy, it follows that they should wear the costs of weeding the front garden. Is the landlord liable to compensate the tenants for the costs of removing chattels from the premises?
The tenants claim that Mr Burley required them to purchase chattels he had available for the flat being a TV, dishwasher, washing machine and microwave. They could either pay for them in full or over time and he promised to buy them back at the end of the tenancy, noting that the price would depend on their condition. He told them this was the arrangement he had with the previous tenant.
Mr Burley prepared a separate purchase agreement which he emailed to the tenants containing a list of available chattels and their purchase prices on 2 July 2024 with the following message: “Let me know if you wish to purchase all or some of the additional items, TV, dishwasher, washing machine and microwave. This was the buy-back price from the previous tenants. You can choose to purchase them over a mutually agreeable period, or a one-off payment. I have suggested over 14 months...” The tenants agreed to purchase all the chattels for $1,400 in one lump sum and the purchase was recorded on the property inspection report.
After the tenancy ended, the tenants asked Mr Burley about buying back the chattels and he denied that there was a buy-back agreement. He then offered to advertise the chattels for sale and/or find buyers. However, buyers were not found and eventually he advised the tenants that they would need to remove the items at their cost or he would charge rent for storage. As the tenants had already vacated the premises they had to make arrangements for someone to collect the items and transport them. They seek recovery of the transport costs from the landlord because he reneged on the buy-back agreement.
The tenants approached the previous tenant to ask about her arrangement with the landlord about chattels. She confirmed that she bought them off the landlord at the start of the tenancy and he agreed to buy them back at the end of the tenancy as a favour because they were relocating and did not need the items.
Mr Burley denies that he required the tenants to buy the chattels and it was simply an option as indicated in his email of 4 July 2024. He also confirms that he supplied the previous tenant with the chattels but did not agree a buy back condition. He bought the chattels back from the previous tenants as a favour because they did not need them due to relocating. This is consistent with the previous tenant’s statement.
I am satisfied on the evidence, and in the absence of a specific agreement in writing, that the landlord did not agree to buy back the chattels at the end of the tenancy. The tenants claims for the costs of removing and transporting the chattels after the tenancy ended is therefore dismissed.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
I am satisfied on the photo evidence, and the tenants acknowledge, that they did not leave the sleepout reasonably clean and tidy and the landlords spent some time cleaning up. I also accept that the tenants are liable for the landlord’s costs of removing green waste from the garden. The landlords seek $111.20 for their time cleaning and $52 for rubbish removal costs which I award.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
I must consider betterment and depreciation for items that have to be replaced where necessary. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The tenants left a burn mark on the wooden bench and accept the landlords claim for sanding discs to try and remove the mark. The amount claimed is ordered.
It is not disputed that a tenant’s dog chewed the base of both pantry doors in the kitchen. I am satisfied that the damage was caused carelessly and the tenants are responsible for it. They did not report it to the landlord at the time and the landlord discovered it at the end of the tenancy. The landlord says the doors require replacement. The doors were installed before the previous tenancy approximately 3 years ago. He found the same Kaboodle doors at Bunnings which he ordered costing $777. The doors are made of vinyl wrapped MDF.
The tenants dispute that the doors need replacing and suggested that the doors could be repaired with filler and vinyl wrap. The landlord says they cannot be repaired.
I am satisfied that the dog chew marks on the doors are deep and have damaged the underlying MDF core which would be difficult to fix. I accept that replacement is the most viable and cost effective option. However, I must take depreciation into account. These types of doors are expected to last up to 10 years depending on quality and usage. Given that the doors are three years old, I award the landlord $543.90 which is the replacement cost of $777 reduced for depreciation by 30%. I consider that is a fair outcome. Summary
As the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims overall, they are entitled to suppression of their names and identifying details as requested, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The effect of the above awards against each party is that the landlords owe the tenants $1,602.91 plus full refund of the bond of $2,920. The landlords have already refunded $1,911.81 from the bond and owe the tenants the remaining $1008.19 which they retained. Therefore, the total award to be paid by the landlords to the tenants is $2,611.10. Orders are made accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341914 — Exemplary damages at 8 Taungata Road, York Bay, Lower Hutt 5013

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341914 — Exemplary damages at 8 Taungata Road, York Bay, Lower Hutt 5013

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord provide the tenants with a copy of the tenancy agreement?

Did the landlord provide a Healthy Homes Compliance statement?

Did the landlord document the change of tenant?

Did the landlord lodge the bond with the Bond Centre?

Is the landlord liable to compensate the tenants for gardening work?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord provide the tenants with a copy of the tenancy agreement?

Did the landlord provide a Healthy Homes Compliance statement?

Did the landlord document the change of tenant?

Did the landlord lodge the bond with the Bond Centre?

Is the landlord liable to compensate the tenants for gardening work?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?