What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9057644?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 9057644?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9057644?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Leaks, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9057644?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11085814-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9057644?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 9057644?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9057644?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Leaks, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9057644?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11085814-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Te Aro, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 9057644 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Te Aro, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 9057644 — Mould & damp | TenantCheck

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by a unit owners against the body corporate. The dispute centres around a water leak, which the unit owners do not consider has been addressed with reasonable speed by the body corporate, they seek orders around that including compensation.
Both parties appeared at the hearing in Wellington on 13 November 2024. The Body Corporate was represented by Mr Gorrie.

BACKGROUND

The background is not in dispute, and can be summarised as follows.
The unit titled complex is a large and grand building in central Wellington, known as ‘The Wakefield’, built around 1920. In the 1990’s it was converted into apartments. The Applicant owns unit 22, having purchased the unit in 2010.
There is no dispute that there is a leak from the exterior of the building. The Unit Owners describe the situation as follows: Since we owned unit 22, we have had an issue in the 2nd bedroom on the north/western corner of 182 Wakefield Street, in that the paint on the walls and ceiling in the north/west corner has bubbled and split. For several years initially we thought it was a problem with the paint and we had the room redecorated twice. However, when the bubbling continued, we arranged for the building manager to investigate, and it was determined that water ingress was causing “effervescence” i.e. moisture coming through the wall causing the paint/plaster to bubble and split. The damage in unit 26, directly above has been more severe than in our apartment. Unit 27 is the penthouse which is directly above unit 26.
The Body Corporate says: The BCC agrees that there has been a water ingress issue affecting units 22, 26 and 27 over multiple years. These units are situated vertically contiguously on levels 5, 6 and 7 respectively.
Where there is a dispute, is around the question of whether the Body Corporate has acted with reasonable efficiency in getting the leak addressed. The Unit Owners say that the Body Corporate has been too slow, but the Body Corporate disagrees. Both parties have provided a range of documents and reports in relation to the works around the water leaks which I have reviewed. Unit Owners Case
The Unit Owners submit that the Body Corporate has failed in its obligations around maintenance, or otherwise ensuring that the building does not leak. In this case the Unit Owners consider that the Body Corporate has been unreasonably slow in getting the leak fixed, when it was identified.
As a result of the leak, the Unit Owners state their unit has been damaged, and that has caused them a loss.
Furthermore, the Unit Owners say that they have incurred a financial loss where they have been unable to rent the premises because of the state of the second bedroom wall, and further, have been unable to sell the unit, because no purchaser is wanting to purchase a leaking apartment.
The Unit Owners do accept that the whole of their apartment is not uninhabitable, and the leak is limited in one bedroom, however they maintain that still impacts the rentability or saleability of the apartment.
The Unit Owners seek compensation to the equivalent of one year of body corporate levies.
In response to submissions of the Body Corporate, around the Seagar’s not having paid their levies, the Unit Owners responded that it was not their intention not to pay the levies, they have simply exhausted their funds so cannot pay them. The Seagars confirmed that they did not withhold levies because of dissatisfaction with the building works. Body Corporate’s Case
The Body Corporate opposes the claim from the Unit Owners and consider that it has complied with its obligations to address the water ingress issue.
Mr Gorrie states that there are levies outstanding for the Seagars.
The Body Corporate disputes that they have not acted reasonably, and have incurred a significant expenditure over the years in excess of $180,000 toward addressing the problem. The Body Corporate consider that it appointed appropriate and reputable contractors to do the work. Mr Gorrie states that had they known what the problem was, they would have resolved it well before now.
Mr Gorrie notes there have been third party issues such as difficulties in getting scaffolding erected, as the Wellington City Council declined that given water works around the premises.
The Body Corporate disputes that it should be responsible for covering losses for the unit owners from failing to sell in a complex market, and where there are market forces in play.
The Body Corporate accepts that they have not been successful in resolving the problem but believe they have done what they could reasonably have done.
Mr Gorrie states that the Body Corporate has been as supportive as they could including providing a letter for potential buyers confirming that the Body Corporate is responsible for addressing any water ingress issues.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Unit Titles Act 2010 (“UTA”) and the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (“RTA”), in terms of the operation of the Tenancy Tribunal.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

ANALYSIS

What are the obligations on the Body Corporate?

While the Unit Owners have referred me to the Body Corporate Rules, the key legal obligation on the Body Corporate is found in section 138 of the Unit Titles Act 2010. That provision confirms that the Body Corporate is responsible for the repair and maintenance of, amongst other things, building elements. In effect, building elements are all those parts of the building that protect the building from water ingress.
It is very well settled law that the obligation to repair and maintain the unit titled premises, to avoid water ingress, sit with the Body Corporate. Because that obligation is not in dispute, I will not set it out any further in this order.

Has the Body Corporate breached those obligations?

There is a dispute around whether the Body Corporate has acted with reasonable efficiency in undertaking work to stop the water leak.
Having considered the documentation available, my assessment is that the Body Corporate has acted reasonably for these reasons.
Firstly, it must be recognised that this is a large and complex building. It can be accepted that determining the source of any water leak would not necessarily be a simple matter. The experience of this jurisdiction with water leaks, is that sometimes they are easy to pinpoint, and in other cases, like this one, the leak proves notoriously difficult to identify and therefore, treat. I accept the difficulties that the Body Corporate has explained, where they describe the situation as follows: • The water ingress is affecting apartments 22, 26 and 27. These units are situated vertically contiguously on levels 5,6 and 7 respectively. • The challenge is that despite significant professional advice and invasive building investigations no one is able to say with any confidence what the root cause is. Fixing a broken light or a faulty lift is easy in comparison. The only way to proceed has to been to undertake multiple projects as and when potential causes can be identified, each time hoping that the solution has been found. • The issue is not physical leaking water (i.e. visible drips or runs of water) ito units 26 and 22. It is simply a small amount of moisture from the concrete being sucked into the plastered areas of the wall (causing efflorescence) as it is more absorbent. • Architects believe water tracks from unit 27 to unit 26 and then migrates to unit 22 – thus the reference in the architect reports to unit 27 as the source of problem. The owners of unit 27 (the current BC Chair) have had their outdoor decking uplifted 4 times over the last 4½ years to waterproof and inspect and fix any drainage problems – each attempt was to resolve ingress to units 22 and 26. • The impact of efflorescence to unit 26 is greater (more pronounced instances of plaster damage) compared to unit 22. • Unit 27 did have water leaking through skylights, but it is not thought that this is directly related to the water ingress in the units below. And it is hoped that this has been addressed in the most recent works (along with works to address units 26 and 22). • The most recent project (completed 1 September 2024) had a delayed start due to Wellington City Council not allowing consents for scaffolding to be erected while drainage works in Taranaki Street were being completed.
I also accept that the evidence favours a conclusion that the Body Corporate has been active in identifying and addressing the leak.
As stated in Mr Gorries submission, which I accept: • The BCC unequivocally refutes the assertion that the BC has been inactive over the last 24 months in addressing the water ingress. • The BC has incurred substantial expense over a number of years seeking to address water ingress to units 22, 26 and 27. The table below is sourced from BC financial statements by the BC Chair (a qualified accountant and experienced CFO). The majority of this spend relates specifically to resolving the issues for units 22 and 26. Details can be provided if required. Year (GST Excl)ArchitectContractorTotal 2021/224,1374,137 2022/232,49234,18536,677 2023/2420,16485,436105,600 2024/25 (to Sept 2024)20,16485,436105,600 Total for period36,937144,436181,373 • Attachment 2 provides copies of the AGM minutes for the last four years (2021, 2022, 2023, 2024) showing clear references to ongoing work to address water ingress issues. •The BC has at all times engaged qualified consultants and contractors. Attachments 3 and 4 provide copies of communications and reports from our professional advisors, Inside Architecture, from the last 18 months. These clearly demonstrate that the BC has been pro-active in seeking to identify and address water ingress and confirms the BC has acted with purpose both in timing and the engagement of relevant professionals.
In my view, the Body Corporate has acted to appoint qualified experts to undertake the assessment and maintenance works. In undertaking that process, it can be accepted that there would be some delays while the required body corporate decision making processes took place, but overall the Body Corporate acted reasonably.
As above, there is an obligation on the Body Corporate to maintain building elements, and in this case I find the Body Corporate has complied with that requirement, and therefore find that no breach has been proven.

Can compensation be ordered?

Given I have found there is no breach established, it must following that there would be no basis to order compensation be paid to the tenant for the claimed breach.
However, even if I were wrong in that assessment, I would find that the Unit Owners have not quantified what their loss would be. I have not received evidence from prospective tenants or Air BnB users that would prove to the balance of probabilities that they would not rent these premises because of dampness to the affected wall.
As it relates to the ability to sell the premises, again there is no evidence before me from a suitable qualified and independent person, supporting that the premises could not be sold, because of the wall issue. I can accept that purchasers generally are reluctant to purchase into leaking buildings, but that would be an issue that would be relevant for all unit owners in this building.
I make the observation that if the Unit Owners could quantify their loss, this may be a case where a claim on the insurance held by the Body Corporate would be appropriate. I have not seen the policy, but simply note that is an option that the Unit Owners could consider.
For those reasons, I find this claim has not been established, so it is dismissed.
I conclude by noting that the issue of overdue levies was raised. Because this is not an application from the Body Corporate, I will not address that matter, beyond noting that there is, of course, a legal obligation on unit owners to pay their levies. However, again I do not believe that is disputed at all.

COSTS

Both parties have applied for costs. As I said I would do, I will set out the considerations for costs in this order.
The mechanical provisions around the operation of the Tenancy Tribunal, including in its unit titles jurisdiction under the UTA, are found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The provisions relating to costs are found in section 102 as follows:
Costs (1) Except in a case to which any of subsections (2), (4), or (5) apply, the Tribunal shall have no power to award costs to or against any party to proceedings before it. (2)The Tribunal may make an order of a kind referred to in subsection (3) in any of the following cases: (a) where, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious or ought not to have been brought: (b) where any of the parties was represented by counsel: (c) where, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the matter in dispute ought reasonably to have been settled before the Tenancy Mediator but that the party against whom the order is to be made refused, without reasonable excuse, to take part in proceedings before a Tenancy Mediator or acted in any such proceedings in a contemptuous or improper manner: (d) where any applicant to the Tribunal, after receiving notice of the hearing, fails to attend the hearing without good cause.
As can be seen above, there are very limited circumstances where the Tribunal can order costs for a proceeding. I find that section 3(a), (c) or (d) do not apply.
As it relates to 3(b), I could only order costs in favour of the Body Corporate, if the Body Corporate was represented in this proceeding be counsel, meaning a Barrister or Solicitor, who has charged for their time. If the Body Corporate considers that applies here, then it can write to the Tribunal setting out what the costs claim would be. However in the absence of legal representation, I have no basis to order costs in this case to either party.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by a unit owners against the body corporate. The dispute centres around a water leak, which the unit owners do not consider has been addressed with reasonable speed by the body corporate, they seek orders around that including compensation.
Both parties appeared at the hearing in Wellington on 13 November 2024. The Body Corporate was represented by Mr Gorrie.

BACKGROUND

The background is not in dispute, and can be summarised as follows.
The unit titled complex is a large and grand building in central Wellington, known as ‘The Wakefield’, built around 1920. In the 1990’s it was converted into apartments. The Applicant owns unit 22, having purchased the unit in 2010.
There is no dispute that there is a leak from the exterior of the building. The Unit Owners describe the situation as follows: Since we owned unit 22, we have had an issue in the 2nd bedroom on the north/western corner of 182 Wakefield Street, in that the paint on the walls and ceiling in the north/west corner has bubbled and split. For several years initially we thought it was a problem with the paint and we had the room redecorated twice. However, when the bubbling continued, we arranged for the building manager to investigate, and it was determined that water ingress was causing “effervescence” i.e. moisture coming through the wall causing the paint/plaster to bubble and split. The damage in unit 26, directly above has been more severe than in our apartment. Unit 27 is the penthouse which is directly above unit 26.
The Body Corporate says: The BCC agrees that there has been a water ingress issue affecting units 22, 26 and 27 over multiple years. These units are situated vertically contiguously on levels 5, 6 and 7 respectively.
Where there is a dispute, is around the question of whether the Body Corporate has acted with reasonable efficiency in getting the leak addressed. The Unit Owners say that the Body Corporate has been too slow, but the Body Corporate disagrees. Both parties have provided a range of documents and reports in relation to the works around the water leaks which I have reviewed. Unit Owners Case
The Unit Owners submit that the Body Corporate has failed in its obligations around maintenance, or otherwise ensuring that the building does not leak. In this case the Unit Owners consider that the Body Corporate has been unreasonably slow in getting the leak fixed, when it was identified.
As a result of the leak, the Unit Owners state their unit has been damaged, and that has caused them a loss.
Furthermore, the Unit Owners say that they have incurred a financial loss where they have been unable to rent the premises because of the state of the second bedroom wall, and further, have been unable to sell the unit, because no purchaser is wanting to purchase a leaking apartment.
The Unit Owners do accept that the whole of their apartment is not uninhabitable, and the leak is limited in one bedroom, however they maintain that still impacts the rentability or saleability of the apartment.
The Unit Owners seek compensation to the equivalent of one year of body corporate levies.
In response to submissions of the Body Corporate, around the Seagar’s not having paid their levies, the Unit Owners responded that it was not their intention not to pay the levies, they have simply exhausted their funds so cannot pay them. The Seagars confirmed that they did not withhold levies because of dissatisfaction with the building works. Body Corporate’s Case
The Body Corporate opposes the claim from the Unit Owners and consider that it has complied with its obligations to address the water ingress issue.
Mr Gorrie states that there are levies outstanding for the Seagars.
The Body Corporate disputes that they have not acted reasonably, and have incurred a significant expenditure over the years in excess of $180,000 toward addressing the problem. The Body Corporate consider that it appointed appropriate and reputable contractors to do the work. Mr Gorrie states that had they known what the problem was, they would have resolved it well before now.
Mr Gorrie notes there have been third party issues such as difficulties in getting scaffolding erected, as the Wellington City Council declined that given water works around the premises.
The Body Corporate disputes that it should be responsible for covering losses for the unit owners from failing to sell in a complex market, and where there are market forces in play.
The Body Corporate accepts that they have not been successful in resolving the problem but believe they have done what they could reasonably have done.
Mr Gorrie states that the Body Corporate has been as supportive as they could including providing a letter for potential buyers confirming that the Body Corporate is responsible for addressing any water ingress issues.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Unit Titles Act 2010 (“UTA”) and the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (“RTA”), in terms of the operation of the Tenancy Tribunal.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

ANALYSIS

What are the obligations on the Body Corporate?

While the Unit Owners have referred me to the Body Corporate Rules, the key legal obligation on the Body Corporate is found in section 138 of the Unit Titles Act 2010. That provision confirms that the Body Corporate is responsible for the repair and maintenance of, amongst other things, building elements. In effect, building elements are all those parts of the building that protect the building from water ingress.
It is very well settled law that the obligation to repair and maintain the unit titled premises, to avoid water ingress, sit with the Body Corporate. Because that obligation is not in dispute, I will not set it out any further in this order.

Has the Body Corporate breached those obligations?

There is a dispute around whether the Body Corporate has acted with reasonable efficiency in undertaking work to stop the water leak.
Having considered the documentation available, my assessment is that the Body Corporate has acted reasonably for these reasons.
Firstly, it must be recognised that this is a large and complex building. It can be accepted that determining the source of any water leak would not necessarily be a simple matter. The experience of this jurisdiction with water leaks, is that sometimes they are easy to pinpoint, and in other cases, like this one, the leak proves notoriously difficult to identify and therefore, treat. I accept the difficulties that the Body Corporate has explained, where they describe the situation as follows: • The water ingress is affecting apartments 22, 26 and 27. These units are situated vertically contiguously on levels 5,6 and 7 respectively. • The challenge is that despite significant professional advice and invasive building investigations no one is able to say with any confidence what the root cause is. Fixing a broken light or a faulty lift is easy in comparison. The only way to proceed has to been to undertake multiple projects as and when potential causes can be identified, each time hoping that the solution has been found. • The issue is not physical leaking water (i.e. visible drips or runs of water) ito units 26 and 22. It is simply a small amount of moisture from the concrete being sucked into the plastered areas of the wall (causing efflorescence) as it is more absorbent. • Architects believe water tracks from unit 27 to unit 26 and then migrates to unit 22 – thus the reference in the architect reports to unit 27 as the source of problem. The owners of unit 27 (the current BC Chair) have had their outdoor decking uplifted 4 times over the last 4½ years to waterproof and inspect and fix any drainage problems – each attempt was to resolve ingress to units 22 and 26. • The impact of efflorescence to unit 26 is greater (more pronounced instances of plaster damage) compared to unit 22. • Unit 27 did have water leaking through skylights, but it is not thought that this is directly related to the water ingress in the units below. And it is hoped that this has been addressed in the most recent works (along with works to address units 26 and 22). • The most recent project (completed 1 September 2024) had a delayed start due to Wellington City Council not allowing consents for scaffolding to be erected while drainage works in Taranaki Street were being completed.
I also accept that the evidence favours a conclusion that the Body Corporate has been active in identifying and addressing the leak.
As stated in Mr Gorries submission, which I accept: • The BCC unequivocally refutes the assertion that the BC has been inactive over the last 24 months in addressing the water ingress. • The BC has incurred substantial expense over a number of years seeking to address water ingress to units 22, 26 and 27. The table below is sourced from BC financial statements by the BC Chair (a qualified accountant and experienced CFO). The majority of this spend relates specifically to resolving the issues for units 22 and 26. Details can be provided if required. Year (GST Excl)ArchitectContractorTotal 2021/224,1374,137 2022/232,49234,18536,677 2023/2420,16485,436105,600 2024/25 (to Sept 2024)20,16485,436105,600 Total for period36,937144,436181,373 • Attachment 2 provides copies of the AGM minutes for the last four years (2021, 2022, 2023, 2024) showing clear references to ongoing work to address water ingress issues. •The BC has at all times engaged qualified consultants and contractors. Attachments 3 and 4 provide copies of communications and reports from our professional advisors, Inside Architecture, from the last 18 months. These clearly demonstrate that the BC has been pro-active in seeking to identify and address water ingress and confirms the BC has acted with purpose both in timing and the engagement of relevant professionals.
In my view, the Body Corporate has acted to appoint qualified experts to undertake the assessment and maintenance works. In undertaking that process, it can be accepted that there would be some delays while the required body corporate decision making processes took place, but overall the Body Corporate acted reasonably.
As above, there is an obligation on the Body Corporate to maintain building elements, and in this case I find the Body Corporate has complied with that requirement, and therefore find that no breach has been proven.

Can compensation be ordered?

Given I have found there is no breach established, it must following that there would be no basis to order compensation be paid to the tenant for the claimed breach.
However, even if I were wrong in that assessment, I would find that the Unit Owners have not quantified what their loss would be. I have not received evidence from prospective tenants or Air BnB users that would prove to the balance of probabilities that they would not rent these premises because of dampness to the affected wall.
As it relates to the ability to sell the premises, again there is no evidence before me from a suitable qualified and independent person, supporting that the premises could not be sold, because of the wall issue. I can accept that purchasers generally are reluctant to purchase into leaking buildings, but that would be an issue that would be relevant for all unit owners in this building.
I make the observation that if the Unit Owners could quantify their loss, this may be a case where a claim on the insurance held by the Body Corporate would be appropriate. I have not seen the policy, but simply note that is an option that the Unit Owners could consider.
For those reasons, I find this claim has not been established, so it is dismissed.
I conclude by noting that the issue of overdue levies was raised. Because this is not an application from the Body Corporate, I will not address that matter, beyond noting that there is, of course, a legal obligation on unit owners to pay their levies. However, again I do not believe that is disputed at all.

COSTS

Both parties have applied for costs. As I said I would do, I will set out the considerations for costs in this order.
The mechanical provisions around the operation of the Tenancy Tribunal, including in its unit titles jurisdiction under the UTA, are found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The provisions relating to costs are found in section 102 as follows:
Costs (1) Except in a case to which any of subsections (2), (4), or (5) apply, the Tribunal shall have no power to award costs to or against any party to proceedings before it. (2)The Tribunal may make an order of a kind referred to in subsection (3) in any of the following cases: (a) where, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious or ought not to have been brought: (b) where any of the parties was represented by counsel: (c) where, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the matter in dispute ought reasonably to have been settled before the Tenancy Mediator but that the party against whom the order is to be made refused, without reasonable excuse, to take part in proceedings before a Tenancy Mediator or acted in any such proceedings in a contemptuous or improper manner: (d) where any applicant to the Tribunal, after receiving notice of the hearing, fails to attend the hearing without good cause.
As can be seen above, there are very limited circumstances where the Tribunal can order costs for a proceeding. I find that section 3(a), (c) or (d) do not apply.
As it relates to 3(b), I could only order costs in favour of the Body Corporate, if the Body Corporate was represented in this proceeding be counsel, meaning a Barrister or Solicitor, who has charged for their time. If the Body Corporate considers that applies here, then it can write to the Tribunal setting out what the costs claim would be. However in the absence of legal representation, I have no basis to order costs in this case to either party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9057644 — Mould & damp in Te Aro, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9057644 — Mould & damp in Te Aro, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

What are the obligations on the Body Corporate?

Has the Body Corporate breached those obligations?

Can compensation be ordered?

COSTS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

What are the obligations on the Body Corporate?

Has the Body Corporate breached those obligations?

Can compensation be ordered?

COSTS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions