How much money was awarded in case 9063684?

Filing Fee: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9063684?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9063684?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12037264-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 9063684?

Filing Fee: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9063684?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9063684?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12037264-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Northland, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 9063684 — Mould & damp

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9063684?

The tribunal order states: Elena Vasilyevna Webb to allow entry to unit 2, to allow an engineer or other

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9063684. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
of the entry is provided. 2. Elena Vasilyevna Webb to pay Body Corporate 61160 the filing fee paid to commence this proc	$500.00		of the entry is provided. 2. Elena Vasilyevna Webb to pay Body Corporate 61160 the filing fee paid to commence this proc

Elena Vasilyevna Webb to allow entry to unit 2, to allow an engineer or other suitably qualified building assessor, to inspect the structure of the premises. That entry is to be allowed providing 72 hours notice of the entry is provided.

Elena Vasilyevna Webb to pay Body Corporate 61160 the filing fee paid to commence this proceeding, which is $500.00. That amount to be paid immediately.

The hearing is adjourned. If either party requires further orders in relation to the matters claimed below, a further hearing can be convened.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application from the Body Corporate against a unit owner. This is a small body corporate with only 2 principal units. The relationship between the unit owners has not gone well, with the Body Corporate now seeking orders in relation to the operation of the premises, including responsibilities and funding of maintenance.

BACKGROUND

As the Tribunal understands matters, the building in question was constructed in the 1920’s. In the 1970’s, alterations were made which converted the roof space into a separate dwelling unit. The downstairs unit (the original dwelling) is unit 1, and the ‘new’ dwelling above that became unit 2.

It is apparent that things have not gone well over recent years between the owners of unit 1 (Wayne Churcher, and Nicola Cooper), and the owner of unit 2 (Elena Vasilyevna Webb). The communications on file record various complaints and grievances between the owners, such as concerns around noise and changes of use of the unit 2 space including storage of items intruding into their technical boundary. While the claim before the Tribunal is not from the unit 1 owners (it is a claim from the Body Corporate), there is considerable overlap between the issues taken by the unit owners, and the issues taken by the Body Corporate. However it must be emphasised that the claim I must consider is a claim from the Body Corporate, notwithstanding the overlap of issues.

When the parties could not resolve matters directly, the Body Corporate has filed this application with the Tribunal.

A hearing was convened in Wellington on 29 May 2025. There was no appearance by the unit 2 owner, but I am satisfied that she has been properly notified of the hearing, so I will proceed to consider the claim in her absence. I note that the Body Corporate’s representatives (the unit 1 owners), say that Ms Webb had stated she would not be attending the hearing, which further indicates she is aware of the proceeding.

The Body Corporate has presented written submissions and other documentation in advance, and I will address each claim from that in turn.

ANALYSIS

As I indicated to the Body Corporate at the hearing, in my view this is a case where the Tribunal should clarify to the parties what their respective rights and obligations are, in order to reset the respective approaches, and then to allow the parties to get on with what needs to occur. However I have adjourned the hearing, because if there are further issues that arise in relation to these matters below, then further orders can be made then.

I will proceed to consider the 10 claims from the Body Corporate as follows: Claim 1. Responsibility for insulation

The Body Corporate seeks an order in relation to funding of insulation to be installed between the units (that is in the floor / ceiling between units 1 and 2), in particular the claim is as follows: Both unit owners contribute 50% each to costs of blow-in insulation between the units. The current level of insulation is incomplete and needs topping up to be fit-for-purpose (Docs28&29). The common property to be insulated is of equal area for both units, so a 50% split reflects the best approximation of benefit to each unit. However, the top-up insulation will not address structural sound transfer between the units. The body corporate asks the Tribunal to issue an order allowing the body corporate to order, by ordinary resolution, unit 2 to pay for the full cost of a noise isolation system if deemed necessary. This power would only be invoked in the event that unit 2 continues to harass unit 1 with stomping, slamming doors, etc. Analysis

The primary question to be considered is whether the Body Corporate could pass a resolution requiring the unit owners to fund the replacement or new placement of insulation between the units.

The rights and responsibilities for bodies corporate are limited by the Unit Titles Act 2010. In short, a body corporate can only do what would be allowed in the UTA.

Section 138 is relevant because that sets out the extent of a body corporate’s duty around repairs and maintenance, and confirms that: (1) The body corporate must repair and maintain— (a) the common property; and (b) any assets designed for use in connection with the common property; and (c) any other assets owned by the body corporate; and (d) any building elements and infrastructure that relate to or serve more than 1 unit.

If there was an obligation on the body corporate to repair and maintain a particular part of the complex, then it could raise funds for that work by way of levies raised under the UTA.

Taking section 138(1) into account, the space between the units (the ceiling / floor) is not common property, and it would not be an ‘asset’ owned by the body corporate, therefore sub-subsections a, b and c do not apply.

The question then is whether that space would comprise any building element or infrastructure that would relate to or serve more than 1 unit.

The term ‘building element’ is defined in the UTA as follows: building elements includes the external and internal components of any part of a building or land on a unit plan that are necessary to the structural integrity of the building, the exterior aesthetics of the building, or the health and safety of persons who occupy or use the building and including, without limitation, the roof, balconies, decks, cladding systems, foundations systems (including all horizontal slab structures between adjoining units or underneath the lowest level of the building), retaining walls, and any other walls or other features for the support of the building

I am not persuaded that insulation between floors would be relevant for the structural integrity of the building, the exterior aesthetics, or necessary for health and safety purposes. In relation to health and safety, I am not aware of any legal obligation for insulation to be installed between the floors of habitable rooms, and in fact even if the Residential Tenancies Healthy Homes Standards Regulations 2019 are considered, there are fulsome requirements around insulation in residential premises, but insulation would not need to be installed in such a situation. In that regard regulation 15 requires: 15 Underfloor insulation for suspended floors (1) If a domestic living space in the premises has a suspended floor, that floor must be fully covered by qualifying underfloor insulation. (2) However, the floor is not required to be fully covered so far as— (a)another domestic living space (whether or not part of the premises) is immediately below the floor; or

Therefore insulation would not fall into the Body Corporate’s obligations in relation to building elements.

The question then is whether insulation would be ‘infrastructure’. Infrastructure has the following definition in the UTA: infrastructure includes pipes, wires, ducts, conduits, gutters, watercourses, cables, channels, flues, conducting, or transmission equipment necessary for the provision of water, sewerage, drainage, stormwater removal, gas, electricity, oil, shelter, protection from fire, security, rubbish collection, air, telephone connection, Internet access, radio reception, television reception, or any other services or utilities to or from a unit or to or from the common property

I do not consider that insulation would fall within that definition.

I find therefore that the insulation the Body Corporate seeks to have installed, would not fall within the range of matters the Body Corporate has responsibility for, and that must therefore mean there would be no ability for the Tribunal to make any order that would require a unit owner to contribute to that installation, and it must also mean there would be no lawful ability for a body corporate to pass a resolution requiring a unit owner to contribute to that work. Claim 2 – Liability for a skylight

The second claim relates to the question of who would be liable for funding works involving a skylight installed in the roof, providing light into Unit 2. The Body Corporate claim is as follows: Unit 2 to accept full costs of skywindow installation and ongoing maintenance. The Body corporate observes the activities of unit 2 to upgrade a sky window by fraudulent, non-transparent and deceptive. By withholding important information on the nature of alleged past ‘leaks’, denying assessors access for an assessment, misinforming them, and accepting quotes without body corporate approval, the body corporate was not able to ascertain if the replacement was necessary. Evidence and behaviour strongly suggests that any past leaks were in the surrounding flashing and fixed, and that the motivation to deceive unit 1 by unit 2 was to upgrade to a skywindow to unit 2’s sole benefit. Analysis

The Body Coporate states that the owner of unit 2 has at some stage installed a skylight, and reported that it was leaking. I understand that a dispute arose as to who would be responsible for assessing and repairing any leaks.

As I have set out above, section 84 of the UTA confirms that the Body Corporate must maintain building elements and infrastructure which relate to or serve more than one unit, and I have included above the definition of what building elements include.

Accordingly then, section 138 would apply to confirm that the responsibility for maintaining any building element would fall to the Body Corporate, providing that the building element “relate[s] to or serve[s] more than 1 unit”.

To put this another way, if the building element relates to or serves more than 1 unit then the body corporate will be responsible for its maintenance, otherwise the responsibility for any maintenance will fall to the individual unit owner. Determining whether a building element relates to or serves more than one unit owner, will always be a question of fact.

The courts have considered various appeals over the years, where it has needed to consider the extent of a body corporate’s obligations around maintenance or remediation of building elements. In the High Court judgment of Wheeldon v Body Corporate 342525 [2015] NZHC 884 1 , the High Court confirmed: [84] I accept that, typically, it may be more natural to talk of building elements within private property “relating to” other units or common property than of them “serving” such property and that the word “serve” typically is more naturally associated with infrastructure in the nature of pipes, wires, ducts etc. However, there may be building elements best described as serving more than one unit and infrastructure best described as relating to more than one unit and I would not preclude such a construction. [85] Having regard to the purposes in s 3, I accept Mr Allan’s submission that Harrison J’s approach means that s 138(1)(d) will be satisfied if the relevant building element or infrastructure: (a) naturally attaches to another unit (as in physically adjoining units); or (b) is causally relevant to another unit whether physically or economically (as in non-adjoining units) ; or (c) is referable to another unit whether physically or economically (as in both adjoining and non-adjoining units); or (d) is concerned with another unit whether physically or economically. [86] I would add to this that the inclusion of aesthetics in the definition of “building elements” and the emphasis on “integrity of the development” in s 3 means, in my view, that the economic relationship to which Mr Allan refers should include those factors, which inevitably reflect in value. [87] As indicated, the present case engages both issues of building elements and infrastructure.

In the High Court decision of Body Corporate 198245 v Wong [2012] NZHC, the Court needed to consider a case where there were water leaks affecting both common property and individual units. The body corporate in that case sought orders that the levies raised for the repairs be paid by particular body corporate members. Those unit owners opposed the claim, on the basis that they did not receive any direct benefit from the works, and on that basis should not need to contribute to the costs. The respondent’s position was that the 1 The High Court decision confirmed in the Court of Appeal judgment of Wheeldon v Body Corporate 342525 [2018] NZCA 20. works should be charged to the relevant unit owners who would receive a benefit, under section 33 of the legislation that applied at that time, which is the equivalent of the current section 126. The High Court did not accept that argument, confirming that for the purpose of funding the works, weathertightness issues are interrelated for the entire building. Justice Ellis confirmed at paragraph 70 that: (a) the weathertightness of the entire building is interlinked and indivisible; (b) the proprietors all have a mutual interest in ensuring that the building as a whole is weathertight and kept in good repair. In the absence of expert evidence on the point, it can reasonably be assumed that if part of the building is not weathertight then that would adversely affect the saleability and value of all units, regardless of whether they themselves are in fact leaky; (c) each of the owners bought into the building as a whole, not just their individual unit; (d) each owner must be taken to have bought into the building knowing, and on the basis, of the division between common and private property in the unit plan and knowing of their responsibility to contribute to the maintenance and repair of the common property as so defined; (e) the sharing of common property repair costs on a unit entitlement basis necessarily contemplates that there may be an element of disproportionality and that prospect must also be taken to have been accepted when each owner bought into the Ridge.

More recently, and applying the current statutory scheme, are the line of cases in the Otway dispute, particularly the decision from the High Court 2 and Court of Appeal. 3 Justice Woolford in the High Court accepted that: a. Like the finding in Body Corporate 198245 v Wong, weathertightness of the building is interlinked and indivisible. b. If part of the building is leaking, it affects the whole of the complex as it relates to saleability and value.

I also note the High Court decision of Body Corporate 199380 v Cook & Anor [2018] NZHC 1244. In that case the Court discussed the impact of Otway, and confirmed that the Court did not support recovery against particular unit owners under section 126, when the issue was weathertightness that would potentially impact the wider complex: 2 Body Corporate s73368 v Otway [2017] NZHC 3265. 3 Body Corporate S73368 v Otway [2018] NZCA 612. [87] Some important lessons can be drawn from the approach followed in Otway. First, Woodford J considered the scope of recovery of repair costs under both sections 126 and 138(4) – as well as under s 127 which was held not to apply. While that may have been the consequence of the way the body corporate put its case, the decision shows that by considering recovery under the various tools under the Act, rather than just on the basis of title, fuller account can be taken of the causes of the damage and, therefore, of the bases on which costs can be allocated. For example, a number of the reasons identified by Woolford J for deciding the major costs should remain with the body corporate rather than borne by individual unit owners – such as the role of the deck and underlying membrane in ensuring the overall weathertightness of the building and the interest of all unit owners in maintaining that weathertightness – might well have been applicable in the present case.

As noted in the commentary to section 126 by Westlaw (on-line), in relation to the Cook decision: The first principle was that the owner of the unit should bear the cost of repair to the unit. However where the issue dealt with weathertightness, it was reasonable and “fair” to conclude that other unit owners should reasonably bear a cost in so far as the other units in the development were protected. Further, where the repair benefited the building generally (and not some unit owners more than others), then all unit owners should contribute on the basis of payment of their apportioned utility interest.

Taking into consideration the approach from the courts as set out above, I conclude as follows: a. The skylight in question, would comprise a building element. b. That building element relates to or serves the whole of the unit title development. If it leaks it has the potential to damage both units, and materially impact the value of both units. c. The responsibility to maintain the skylight is the sole responsibility of the Body Corporate.

So, it is for the Body Corporate to decide the extent of any work needed to the skylight, and if it would seek to recover the costs from the unit 2 owner. Claim 3 – Structural assessment

The Body Corporate seeks an order around a structural inspection of the premises. The Body Corporate states: Ordering a surveyor to inspect structural integrity and building code compliance of non-consented structures in unit 2, namely the storage area next to bedroom 1, breach/alteration of a trussed firewall, and the space deemed bedroom 2, mezzanine area and installation of a second shower. Costs for surveying, any required certificates of acceptance and any necessary structural compliances to be met by unit 2. Analysis

Again this application turns on the extent of the respective obligations held by the parties.

As far as the Body Corporate is concerned, as noted above section 138 of the UTA places a duty on a body corporate to repair and maintain building elements and relevantly the definition of building elements includes: building elements includes the ... internal components of any part of a building ... that are necessary to the structural integrity of the building, ... and including, without limitation, the roof, ... and any other walls or other features for the support of the building

The Body Corporate has provided the Tribunal with sufficient evidence to justify a conclusion that unconsented works have been undertaken in unit 2, such that walls or other structures have been added or altered, in such a way as to potentially impact the structural integrity of the building as a whole. That evidence includes evidence that over the years additional rooms have been formed, and an apparent mismatch between the existing layout of unit 2 when compared to the most recent plans held by the Wellington City Council.

It would be reasonable for a suitably qualified expert to examine the structure of the dwelling, to confirm to the Body Corporate that the premises are reasonably structurally intact – so as to ensure the Body Corporate can comply with its obligations under section 138.

I note here that section 80 of the UTA relates to the responsibilities of unit owners, and that includes the following: 80 Responsibilities of owners of principal units (1) An owner of a principal unit— (a) must permit the body corporate (or its agents) to enter the unit at any time in an emergency and at all reasonable hours, and after giving reasonable notice, for any of the following purposes: (i) to view the condition of the unit for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with the principal unit owners’ or occupiers’ obligations under this Act: (ii) to maintain, repair, or renew any infrastructure for services and utilities that serve more than 1 unit and any building elements that affect more than 1 unit or the common property, or both:

I have no reservation in concluding that entry for a suitably qualified person to assess the structure of the building would fall within the unit owners’ obligations under section 80 above.

I also note for completeness, that there is an obligation on the Body Corporate to have and maintain insurance for the complex. Further section 80(1)(k) prohibits a unit owner from doing “anything that breaches or in any way undermines any policy of insurance in the name of the body corporate.” I agree with the Body Corporate that if changes have been made that jeopardise the structure of the building, then that is likely to place the insurance cover at risk, which would be contrary to the obligations held by both the Body Corporate and Unit Owner.

However, I note that the appropriate expert would most likely be an engineer not a surveyor, but no doubt that can be confirmed with the relevant proposed expert.

In any event, I have made an order that the unit 2 owner permit entry to her unit for the inspection by a suitably qualified expert with 72 hours notice.

In terms of any order in relation to the payment for that assessment or any later work, such an order would be premature. At this stage the obligation to ensure the premises are structurally sound sits with the Body Corporate, so it must be that in the first instance the Body Corporate is required to fund this work. Recovery of that cost or any later costs turns entirely on what the structural expert finds, so could not be determined at this time. Claim 4 – Storage area

As I understand matters, the issue taken by the Body Corporate is that the Unit 2 owner is using an area in a ceiling space for storage. The Body Corporate seek the following: URGENT ORDER For the roof space above unit 1 bedroom1 and other rooms, to the north east face and on the left of unit 2 patio, to be immediately evacuated of all objects along with the reinstatement of blanket insulation to meet the current code. Any future use of this area would require compliance to a fixed, fire rated flooring with replacement insulation and approval of the body corporate.

The evidence provided by Mr Churcher and Ms Cooper at the hearing, and supported in photographs, is that Ms Webb is using an area in the ceiling space for general storage. Reference was made to a photograph taken from inside unit 1, showing photographs of holes cut in their ceiling, which indicate that goods are being stored in that ceiling space, and sitting on the plaster (Gib) board ceiling directly. Analysis

Based on what I have before me, I accept it is most likely that the ceiling space area is being used by Ms Webb for storage, and I accept that some items are likely to be sitting on the Webbs’ ceiling directly (the plasterboard).

The application before me is from the Body Corporate, not the unit 1 owners.

The Body Corporate has not identified any legal obligation which Ms Webb would be breaching by using that ceiling space for storage, as far as her obligations to the Body Corporate. Based on the unit plan, it seems that ceiling space is part of the principal unit that Ms Webb owns. I am not aware of any restriction she would face in having some goods stored in that area in general.

However, I note in order to resolve further disputes, that it may well be that Ms Webb is breaching an obligation to the unit 1 owners, if she is storing her goods on the plasterboard ceiling directly. That is for two reasons.

Firstly, there is the obvious risk that arises from storing goods directly on plasterboard which is not intended for taking weight that may arise from storage directly on the surface of the board. An owner cannot act in a way to cause damage to another unit owners property.

Secondly, storing goods directly on the plasterboard would likely be a trespass on the property of the unit 1 owners. In that regard the usual position in law in New Zealand, is that a unit boundary is located in the middle of a wall or floor. If Ms Webb is storing goods on the ceiling, which would be beyond her half of the floor, she would in effect be storing those goods on her lower neighbour’s property. Claim 5 – Payment of roof repairs

The Body Corporate seeks an order that unit 2 pay money toward a roof repair. The Body Corporate state: Unit 2 to pay for 50% of roof repair on lower floor structure of unit 1, a total of $1725.00. Analysis

There are two problems with the application for the Body Corporate in this case.

Firstly, because the roof is a building element that relates to or serves more than one unit, it is the obligation of the Body Corporate to fund any building works.

Secondly, while there is an ability to recover costs for work to building elements under section 126 or 127 4 , the Body Corporate would first need to pass a resolution at an AGM or EGM for that recovery to take place, and that has not occurred.

The Tribunal otherwise has no ability to order that money be paid to a body corporate by one unit owner in circumstances such as this in the absence of the necessary resolutions from the Body Corporate in the first instance. Claim 6 – Pest control costs

The Body Corporate seeks an order that Ms Webb pay a contribution toward pest control at the complex. The Body Corporate states: That unit 2 pay her utilities interest for past and subsequent bait applications; 13 baiting services since Elena Webb’s purchase of unit 2, total costs $1644.50, 33% (Doc31) of which is $542.67 (Doc16). Pest control is a necessary part of maintaining the building where all units benefit. It should not be left for a sole unit holder to shoulder the costs of such an important service (Doc24). Analysis

It is not clear to me if the Body Corporate has passed a resolution that pest control be undertaken. If it has, then both unit owners will be liable to contribute toward the cost of that to the extent of their utility interest, but the Body Corporate would first need to pass a resolution to raise those levies. 4 Section 126 allows a body corporate to recover money expended for work or repairs such as to building elements, when that work is substantially for the benefit of one unit. Section 127 allows a body corporate to recover money expended in repairs necessary because of the fault of particular unit owner(s).

In the event this remains in dispute, and if both resolutions have been passed, then the Body Corporate can request a money order and I will consider that then. Claim 7 – Costs of consents

The Body Corporate seeks an order that Ms Webb contribute toward the cost incurred with obtaining copies of the building consents at the premises. The Body Corporate seeks: That unit 2 pay for the list of consents (Doc25) for Unit 2 from Wellington City Council, a total of $65.00 (Doc17). Analysis

In my assessment, the Body Corporate obtaining copies of the consents from the Wellington City Council would be a reasonable expenditure given it is required to ensure the structural integrity of the building, and for the reasons I have set out above, it had reasonable grounds to believe the premises had been altered structurally.

Again, the cost for this work must be paid by the Body Corporate as relates to a body corporate obligation.

Beyond that, Ms Webb would only be liable to reimburse the cost of the consents if the Body Corporate first passed a resolution to recover the cost of that work from Ms Webb, under section 126 or 127. The Body Corporate would need to go down that path before the Tribunal could make any order that Ms Webb pay that amount. Claim 8 – Legal costs

The Body Corporate seeks an order that Ms Webb pay legal costs and the filing fee for this proceeding. The Body Corporate states: That unit 2 be ordered to pay the full cost of legal opinion sought by the body corporate in dealing with this matter, being $1879.35 (Doc18) and for the cost of tribunal fees, being $500.00. Analysis

Obtaining legal advice is not uncommon for a body corporate, but the result must be the same as above. If the Body Corporate has undertaken work or incurred some cost, there are provisions that MAY allow the cost to be recovered, that is sections 126 and 127. I express no view as to whether either provision would apply in relation to the legal advice cost, because it is first for the Body Corporate to consider the matter, which again would be via the usual Body Corporate voting processes. The Tribunal cannot truncate that process.

However, the filing fee paid to the Tribunal is different. That falls within section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which confirms that the Tribunal may order the filing fee be paid by a respondent, if the applicant has been partly successful. I consider the Body Corporate has been partly successful in its claims, and it would be fair to make this order. I order Ms Webb to pay the filing fee, which is $500.00. Claim 9.

The Body Corporate seeks clarification around responsibilities for fencing of the premises.

As I explained at the hearing, I decline to make this order. The areas for which the fencing question relates, are areas that bound an accessory unit and neighbouring premises, which would not be an obligation for the Body Corporate, but an obligation for the respective unit owner.

The application before the Tribunal is not an application from the unit 1 owners, it is an application from the Body Corporate.

Notwithstanding that, it is not the role of the Tribunal to provide general legal advice, the Tribunal has no ability in law to do that. The Tribunal adjudicates disputes between parties, and that is not the situation here. Claim 10 – Declaration as to responsibility for charges

The final claim relates to a declaration as to whether the Body Corporate is liable to pay for work undertaken by ‘Lighten up’ which was undertaken by Ms Webb. Analysis

As I understand matters, Ms Webb contracted with a firm, Lighten Up, to do work on a skylight, and this dispute is around whether the Body Corporate should pay for this work.

The technical answer to that is ‘no’. Again because the roof is a building element, it is the Body Corporate that is responsible for maintaining the roof, meaning that it was the Body Corporate that needed to contact and engage any professional, not Ms Webb.

However, there is nothing stopping Ms Webb from seeking to recover the cost of that work from the Body Corporate, she would do that via the usual body corporate governance processes, which may include a resolution at the next AGM / EGM for that money to be paid. If the Body Corporate votes that resolution down, then Ms Webb can seek file her own application with the Tribunal under the minority relief provisions.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9063684. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
of the entry is provided. 2. Elena Vasilyevna Webb to pay Body Corporate 61160 the filing fee paid to commence this proc	$500.00		of the entry is provided. 2. Elena Vasilyevna Webb to pay Body Corporate 61160 the filing fee paid to commence this proc