What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5473153 about?

The tribunal order states: Tommy's Property Management Limited As Agent For Gurmeet Singh Sandhu

How much money was awarded in case 5473153?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5473153?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5473153?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13777015-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5473153 about?

The tribunal order states: Tommy's Property Management Limited As Agent For Gurmeet Singh Sandhu

How much money was awarded in case 5473153?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5473153?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5473153?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13777015-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 11, 11 Gordon Place, Newtown, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 5473153 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Tommy's Property Management Limited As Agent For Gurmeet Singh Sandhu must pay [The tenant/s] $4,588.00 immediately, being reimbursement of the bond paid by the tenant.
The application for misrepresentation by the landlord is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
Ms Caldwell had applied for early release from a fixed term tenancy on the basis that the landlord had misrepresented the premises to her prior to the Tenancy Agreement being signed. She also applied for compensation for misrepresentation and refund of the bond.
By the date of hearing, the landlord had agreed to release Ms Caldwell from the tenancy and a new tenant had been found. As a result, this tenancy ended on 23 April 2026. The landlord says that Ms Caldwell is liable for some rent and break lease costs, but has not made an application to the Tribunal.
As the landlord has did not file a cross application against Ms Caldwell as required by section 22B(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Ms Caldwell is tentitled to payment of the bond in full. I could not locate any record of the bond being lodged at the bond centre and the landlord did not provide a bond reference number. I therefore order the landlord to pay the bond amount to the tenant. Was There a Misrepresentation – Is Ms Caldwell Entitled to Compensation?
Section 78(1)(g) RTA applies where it appears to the Tribunal that an agreement has been induced by misrepresentation or mistake which does not accord with the true agreement. In this situation the Tribunal may set aside or vary the agreement.
A misrepresentation is a false statement of fact made by one of the contracting parties to the other. Silence is not a misrepresentation unless the maker of the statement has a duty in law to speak.
The premises are a townhouse in a block of 13 in Newtown in Wellington. There are a mixture of residential and commercial/industrial type premises in the immediate neighbourhood. The complex is down a drive or right away that has commercial premises at the front.
Ms Caldwell did not inspect the premises or their location before signing the tenancy agreement. She claims that she is too busy for in-person inspections and relied on the property manager to be her “eyes and ears”. She viewed the premises via a video inspection.
She claims that during the inspection she asked the property manager what the neighbours are like and he replied that they were “nice” and said there were a number of medical professionals given the premises are near a hospital. She also says that she asked about parking and was briefly shown an area on the drive where she could park.
Ms Caldwell says that the property manager did not disclose that the premises are in a completely industrial area, which are not suitable for her to raise her son. She also referred a community supermarket being nearby.
After signing the tenancy agreement, Ms Caldwell says that her moving company alerted her to concerns with the area. She then viewed the address via goggle earth and determined that it would not be suitable for her and that she would not be moving in.
The property manager said that he prefers prospective tenants to view premises in person, but accommodated Ms Caldwell’s request for a video inspection. He says that he answered her questions and showed her things he considered relevant. He has no issues with the neighbourhood or the surrounds. He also says the advertisement had a link to google maps and the mixed industrial/commercial/residential nature of the community is evident from the satellite view. I also looked at the satellite view during the hearing and agree with that assessment. Put another way, if Ms Caldwell had done her due diligence she would have been able to make her own assessment of whether the location was suitable.
Whether or not a location is suitable for a particular family (or group) is a subjective assessment. If the surrounds are so important to Ms Caldwell, she should have specifically asked the property manager to show her the neighbourhood during the video inspection. More prudently, she could have viewed the premises and or neighbourhood for herself.
The property manager’s comments regarding the neighbours was a statement of opinion, not a false statement of fact. Ms Caldwell did not persuade me that the property manager was under any duty to disclose that the mixed residential/commercial/industrial properties in the vicinity. The application for compensation for misrepresentation is dismissed.
As Ms Caldwell was partially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee. However, she was not substantially successful, in that she failed to establish a misrepresentation, so I have not granted her request for suppression of her details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.

Ms Caldwell had applied for early release from a fixed term tenancy on the basis that the landlord had misrepresented the premises to her prior to the Tenancy Agreement being signed. She also applied for compensation for misrepresentation and refund of the bond.

By the date of hearing, the landlord had agreed to release Ms Caldwell from the tenancy and a new tenant had been found. As a result, this tenancy ended on 23 April 2026. The landlord says that Ms Caldwell is liable for some rent and break lease costs, but has not made an application to the Tribunal.

As the landlord has did not file a cross application against Ms Caldwell as required by section 22B(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Ms Caldwell is tentitled to payment of the bond in full. I could not locate any record of the bond being lodged at the bond centre and the landlord did not provide a bond reference number. I therefore order the landlord to pay the bond amount to the tenant. Was There a Misrepresentation – Is Ms Caldwell Entitled to Compensation?

Section 78(1)(g) RTA applies where it appears to the Tribunal that an agreement has been induced by misrepresentation or mistake which does not accord with the true agreement. In this situation the Tribunal may set aside or vary the agreement.

A misrepresentation is a false statement of fact made by one of the contracting parties to the other. Silence is not a misrepresentation unless the maker of the statement has a duty in law to speak.

The premises are a townhouse in a block of 13 in Newtown in Wellington. There are a mixture of residential and commercial/industrial type premises in the immediate neighbourhood. The complex is down a drive or right away that has commercial premises at the front.

Ms Caldwell did not inspect the premises or their location before signing the tenancy agreement. She claims that she is too busy for in-person inspections and relied on the property manager to be her “eyes and ears”. She viewed the premises via a video inspection.

She claims that during the inspection she asked the property manager what the neighbours are like and he replied that they were “nice” and said there were a number of medical professionals given the premises are near a hospital. She also says that she asked about parking and was briefly shown an area on the drive where she could park.

Ms Caldwell says that the property manager did not disclose that the premises are in a completely industrial area, which are not suitable for her to raise her son. She also referred a community supermarket being nearby.

After signing the tenancy agreement, Ms Caldwell says that her moving company alerted her to concerns with the area. She then viewed the address via goggle earth and determined that it would not be suitable for her and that she would not be moving in.

The property manager said that he prefers prospective tenants to view premises in person, but accommodated Ms Caldwell’s request for a video inspection. He says that he answered her questions and showed her things he considered relevant. He has no issues with the neighbourhood or the surrounds. He also says the advertisement had a link to google maps and the mixed industrial/commercial/residential nature of the community is evident from the satellite view. I also looked at the satellite view during the hearing and agree with that assessment. Put another way, if Ms Caldwell had done her due diligence she would have been able to make her own assessment of whether the location was suitable.

Whether or not a location is suitable for a particular family (or group) is a subjective assessment. If the surrounds are so important to Ms Caldwell, she should have specifically asked the property manager to show her the neighbourhood during the video inspection. More prudently, she could have viewed the premises and or neighbourhood for herself.

The property manager’s comments regarding the neighbours was a statement of opinion, not a false statement of fact. Ms Caldwell did not persuade me that the property manager was under any duty to disclose that the mixed residential/commercial/industrial properties in the vicinity. The application for compensation for misrepresentation is dismissed.

As Ms Caldwell was partially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee. However, she was not substantially successful, in that she failed to establish a misrepresentation, so I have not granted her request for suppression of her details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5473153 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 11, 11 Gordon Place, Newtown, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5473153 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 11, 11 Gordon Place, Newtown, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions