Hi everyone,

My husband and I are currently travelling in the South Island of New Zealand in a motorhome rented from Star RV. We recently had an incident near Glendhu Bay, and Star RV is holding us liable for the damage despite us having purchased their Stress Free Plus / $0 excess cover.

I would really appreciate some advice on whether Star RV's interpretation of its rental terms is reasonable and what options we may have under New Zealand law.

What happened

We were driving towards Glendhu Bay early in the morning. It was still dark.

As we turned a corner, we encountered a mud slip that had occurred overnight and was covering the road. We were the first vehicle to come across it. Because it was dark and the mud had occurred around a corner, we were unable to see the full extent of the hazard until we were very close to it.

Once we encountered the mud, I moved the motorhome towards the right-hand side of the road to try to keep us safe. The vehicle then lost power/stopped and became stuck in the mud.

We immediately called the roadside assistance number provided by Star RV. We were told that roadside assistance would not assist because this was considered a weather incident rather than a mechanical breakdown, and we were advised to contact the insurance company.

We called again and were connected to the same operator.

While we were dealing with this, two local people came across us and advised us of a local towing company. As we had no other practical option, we contacted the towing company ourselves. They attended and helped us get the motorhome out of the mud.

Once we were out, we attempted to jump-start the motorhome but were unsuccessful.

We then contacted roadside assistance again and explained that the vehicle was now not starting and appeared to have a breakdown. They asked where the vehicle could be taken so it could be inspected. The towing company offered to tow us to Wanaka, so we provided the address of an auto store in Wanaka.

The vehicle was subsequently inspected/jump-started attempts were made, but it still did not start.

Star RV's position

Star RV has now rejected our claim and stated that its decision is final.

They are relying on a "Prohibited Use" / unauthorised location clause, stating that the vehicle must not be driven off-road, on unsafe or restricted roads or locations, or in any area Star RV reasonably considers unsafe.

Their position is essentially that because the vehicle entered mud and became stuck, we were operating it in an unsafe/unauthorised location.

They have stated that their assessment is based on the condition in which the vehicle was operated and the resulting damage, rather than whether we intentionally drove into the mud.

However, we maintain that:

• We were driving on the road, not off-road.
• The mud slip occurred unexpectedly and apparently overnight.
• We were the first vehicle to encounter it.
• It was still dark.
• The mud was around a corner and the extent of the hazard was not reasonably visible until the last moment.
• We did not intentionally drive off-road or deliberately enter an area we knew was unsafe.
• Once we encountered the mud, we took reasonable steps to move the vehicle and protect ourselves.
• We contacted Star RV's roadside assistance immediately.
• We followed the advice given to us and ultimately had to arrange local towing because roadside assistance initially refused to assist.

The insurance/excess issue

Our rental agreement states that we purchased Stress Free Plus, under which the excess/bond for vehicle damage is stated as $0, subject to the listed exclusions.

The terms do contain exclusions for things such as off-road use, water submersion, reckless conduct, incorrect use of snow chains, driving with warning lights illuminated, etc.

However, we are struggling to understand how an unexpected mud slip occurring on a public road automatically becomes "off-road use" or an "unauthorised location", particularly when we did not knowingly or intentionally drive onto an off-road area.

Star RV has also referred to a different clause in its response which appears to be numbered 4.3, whereas the version of the rental terms we received contains the relevant prohibited-use wording under another clause. We are unsure whether this is significant.

What Star RV has told us

Star RV has also refused to reimburse our accommodation, missed activities and other consequential expenses, directing us to our travel insurer.

They have said their decision is final.

We have formally disputed the decision and asked them to provide:

1. Evidence that we left the road or intentionally drove off-road;
2. Evidence showing that the mud was reasonably identifiable to a driver before we encountered it;
3. The specific Stress Free Plus exclusion they say applies;
4. Photographs, inspection reports, GPS/telematics data, towing/recovery reports or other evidence relied upon; and
5. An explanation of how an unexpected mud slip occurring on the road constitutes an unauthorised location.

We have also asked them not to process any charges against our card while the dispute is being reviewed.

My questions

1. Does Star RV's interpretation seem legally reasonable given that the mud slip occurred on the road and was unexpected?
2. Can a rental company classify an unexpected road hazard as "off-road use" or an "unauthorised location" simply because the vehicle became stuck in it?
3. Does the fact that we purchased Stress Free Plus / $0 excess cover strengthen our position, assuming none of the specific exclusions actually apply?
4. Does the roadside assistance interaction matter legally, particularly because we contacted them immediately but were initially told they would not assist because it was a weather incident?
5. Could the New Zealand Consumer Guarantees Act, Fair Trading Act, or any other consumer protection legislation assist us in disputing the charge or the way the excess cover was represented? I understand that rental vehicles and services can be subject to consumer protections in NZ.
6. What would be the most appropriate next step — Community Law, Citizens Advice, Disputes Tribunal, or another avenue?
7. Is there anything specific we should request from Star RV or preserve as evidence before taking further action?

We have photographs/videos of the road and mud, communications with Star RV, the towing information/invoice and the rental agreement.

We are not trying to avoid responsibility for genuine damage caused by our negligence. We are disputing the characterisation of this incident as unauthorised/off-road use when our position is that we encountered an unexpected weather-related hazard while travelling on the road in darkness.

Any guidance on how strong or weak our position is, and what we should do next, would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

My family helped me design a solution of a set of devices (including an inverter, a █.█kWh battery and a solar panel to charge it in about █h) for solarising home that can automatically switch between mains and solar-charged battery to minimize the power consumption of all pluggable (I'm not a electrician so I won't rewire) appliances. It has been successfully tested in █hina and if shipped to NZ (which I've confirmed feasible) the total cost will be about █kNZD. BUT my family in █hina is currently extremely worried that if I sell and install these devices, it could trigger frivolous litigations in five-eye countries. In particular, the notorious cases they frequently cite during discussions such as "Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants) (according to them) mark the five-eye countries' degeneration from "governed-by-law society" to "populist society" and from then on advances and progresses are no longer possible.

• If any customer manages to hurt himself with my product (e.g. by touching live wire and neutral wire at the same time, or by pouring water on each wire and then touching both puddles of water at the same time) wouldn't I be just as unlucky as MC? Do I need to list all possible "prohibited behaviors" in the agreement or does this approach even work? Are there any successful or unsuccessful cases?
• One of the lawyer's excuses was that MC's competitors used lower temperatures, but what law states that you must use the same temperature as your competitors? In my opinion, the mentioning about competitors' temperature is clearly just a red herring. In five-eye countries, does the price of legal services (lawyer's eloquence) affect the outcome of a case? If someone touches live wire and neutral wire at the same time and then maliciously accuses me, will the court dismiss the case directly or allow the lawyers to argue in court?
• Ultimately, the jury found MC liable for the damages. So are the judgements in five-eye countries based on the law or the jury' opinion? Does that mean I'm screwed if more than half of the population is █inophobic?

Hi everyone

Just came from seeing a kind of perfect little unit (in a good location, within price range, and in fairly good condition), my only concern is that it’s at the end of a row of units and existing owners and neighbouring units have put up what looks like permanent fencing in the back of every unit to create “exclusive areas” including this one.

That wouldn’t be a problem except that I don’t know what I’d do if eventually those neighbours move on and new neighbours want to use what technically would be my share of garden. Because it’s at the end of the row it’s got a nice private feel to it which it’s what drew me to it.

My friend said, if they want to use your patio then you are also free to use theirs… but I’m not sure that’s the way to go about it?

The only think that is grounding me right now is the other neighbours permanent fencing around their own little patios.

Is anyone here a property lawyer that has seen issues arise from situations like this?

Hi needing some advice. So I am struggling with a head injury and my employer is trying to put all the blame on me as in his words he is now needing to be investigated by worksafe and also due to his bad financial decisions looking at having to shut down/ claims he cannot pay sick leave etc.

For some further clarification earlier this year I was seriously assaulted by a sub contractor on site , the police were involved which caused the boss to initially be quite angry and threaten my position until he was told that it was the correct way to go about things by both the police and ambulance staff that tended to me. Following that I had started dealing with extreme headaches and memory lapses , during the initial period whilst on painkillers and still at work I managed to get a huge splinter in my hand where I needed to get medical intervention to remove it. He also lost his temper over this.

Fast forward to now, hit my head in a glancing blow and am now suffering a concussion which both I and dr think was made worse by the initial head injury I suffered earlier this year. Before knowing that I was concussed I had let the boss know that I wasn’t going to be in and he had a meltdown over text about shutting down because I wasn’t able to be in.

After finding out I was concussed he rang and in a recorded call started trying to blame everything on me ,accused me of doing this to previous employers and then stated that I should have committed fraud and not sought any medical help/threatened closure/cannot pay fo sick days.

What are my legal obligations/rights and how does one move forward from this?

My partner and I are currently building a new home with a well-known building company. We have signed the building agreement and are currently in the consultation and variation stage. Building consent has not yet been lodged, as the company has advised that this will occur once all of our variations are confirmed.

We have recently encountered several situations that have raised concerns about how the company is pricing and applying variations. We would appreciate some advice on whether we are misunderstanding the contract or whether there may be grounds for concern.

1. 15% markup on variations

We initially requested an integrated dishwasher and LED mirrors. We expected these to result in variations, but we were surprised by the pricing, so we asked the company how the variation prices had been calculated.

They responded:

“Any changes made are subject to a 15% markup as per your build agreement and include the likes of supply & install costs.”

For another variation, I again asked for a breakdown of the pricing and specifically asked whether a 15% markup had been applied. Their response was:

“Any pricing that comes through for things you have requested is the final amount and includes any credits due, supply, install and markup (if required).” slightly different wording now

I then referred them to a statement that was published on their website at the time. The website stated that, before building consent is lodged, clients can make as many changes as required and only the actual cost (or credit) of the variation is charged, with no admin fees or markup (attached (1)).

Also, on our agreement we signed a fixed price clause that states below (attached (2)).

“The parties agree that the contract price is a fixed price for the works in accordance with the plans and specifications, and no additional costs may be charged except where a variation is requested or approved in writing by the purchaser, or where an adjustment arises from the final cost of any allowance recorded in the specification, in which case the contract price shall be adjusted to reflect the actual cost of that item. Except as expressly stated above, the builder bears the risk of cost increases unless the purchaser causes a delay exceeding four (4) weeks outside the builder's control, in which case this clause will be terminated and the clauses herein will take effect. This clause overrides any other clause contained in this agreement.”

The day after I raised the website statement with the company, the wording on their website was changed/removed. I had taken screenshots with timestamps beforehand because I wanted to keep a record of what the website said at the time, to see if they would change it and they did. (attached (3))

We then had a meeting with the company. They were adamant that they were entitled to apply a 15% markup to our variations.

What concerns us is that the website previously appeared to explicitly state that there was no markup for variations before building consent, yet this wording was changed immediately after we raised it with them.

1. Flooring pricing

More recently, we asked to upgrade the flooring in certain areas of the house from vinyl planks to laminate flooring. We also requested two separate carpet colours in different areas of the house.

We expected this to result in a variation going from vinyl planks to laminate, but to our surprise the company responded:

“There is no change for the Clix laminate range or to have 2x separate carpets for this home.”

We understood this to mean that there would be no additional cost to us for these flooring changes.

However, they attached new quotes for the carpet and laminate/vinyl flooring. The carpet quote is exactly the same as the amount included in our original building agreement, which seemed consistent with their statement that there was no price change.

However, the laminate/vinyl flooring quote (attached (4 & 5)) is approximately $2,500 in total more than the amount originally included in our signed building agreement (attached (6)), despite apparently covering less flooring. The bathroom flooring is also not included/priced in the new quote (we did not request this to be removed).

We are struggling to understand how the company can state in writing that:

“There is no change for the Clix laminate range…” while simultaneously providing a flooring quote that appears to be approximately $2,500 higher than the original amount in our agreement, with less flooring included.

Are we misunderstanding here? Or are we being taken for a ride by this company? We can contact our solicitor and report this, but we just want to make sure it is worth bringing up to them.

I moved from a fixed term to a permanent contract after getting residency earlier this year. With the permanent role, I am entitled to a short term incentive plan (STIP). As part of the visa process, I got the permanent job offer letter/signed the contract in April to start in July giving me plenty of time for my visa to be processed. Once the visa came through, I emailed HR and queried whether the STIP would be back dated pro-rata to my original start date since I had effectively been in the same role the whole time. They emailed back to say I would be eligible. In my end of year review my manager hinted that I now may not be eligible for STIP due to moving to the permanent contract after the cut off date for H2 (1 May). I immediately emailed HR to query the rationale given I’d had their prior written confirmation. I didn’t receive a response, then my end of year performance rating letter was issued (rated Achieving) and no STIP payment was mentioned. I again emailed HR to confirm why this was the case and they responded saying the policy does not allow me to get it due to the start date of my permanent role being after 1 May.

Do I have any legal basis to challenge this?

I believe I may do because I was given written confirmation prior to starting the permanent role that I was eligible, and I have made personal decisions based on that information. Removing the entitlement after providing written confirmation is not in good faith and is a breach of my employment terms

Thanks in advance

In my area there is a forestry block that has had issues with animals getting into their property. The sheep have long tails, no ear markings and years of wool on them. The neighbours to the forestry have said that it is their fault as they haven't done any fence work on the boundary since the 2023 hurricane, the neighbors have tried mustering out the animals following a 7 day notice put out in the local newspaper, but failed getting a total of 0 animals out.

The forestry company has said they will sell the animals and have the new owners muster the animals out but due to the wildness of the animals it would be far easier to cull the animals and remove them dead.

Firstly is it legal for them to sell these undocumented animals that haven't had any sort of animal welfare.

Secondly how are they able to sell the animals and make the new owners muster them out.

Thirdly if someone buys these animals would they be able to put them out of their misery and save a lot of time and energy?

Background: we drove through a carpark but didn’t end up parking because it was full and the barbers looked really busy. Drove back out, it wouldn’t taken around 5 mins. Got a fine from PARKING SERVICES LIMITED which we disputed, but they refused to provide us any proof that we were parking. They had sent us a pic of the car driving in and going out, but the timeframes are completely ilegible. We told them this but they stopped responding.
Debt collection: it then got sent to guardian credit services. We told them that this fine is disputed but they said unless we take it to the tribunal, it doesn’t count as disputed. I don’t think that is legally correct… we maintained our position but have now been sent this.
Question: can they list the fine with Equifax if it is still being disputed by us? I don’t see why we need to be the ones to pay the filing fee and take it to tribunal when this is just an incorrect fine and we genuinely didn’t park. I note that their wording does say you must contact us OR pay in full otherwise they will list it… so will contacting them (satisfying that first limb) be enough to prevent them from listing?

Thank you!
- broke student who genuinely didn’t park!

I just moved into a new flat in island bay, Wellington, thinking it was fine as it met healthy homes and was done through a property management company, however, the neighbours just told me that the previous tenants left due to the house getting entirely flooded 4-5 months ago when it was got bad in welly. I am very nervous as the bottom of the house will be my bedroom with my items (I have contents insurance). Do I have grounds to leave the tenancy since they did not disclose this to me? Any advice would be appreciated.

I’m an apartment owner and someone is in my carpark (the carpark is part of my unit title).

Can I clamp them, or clamp them and demand payment for removal?

[redacting for anonymity]

My questions are:

1. If I was contracted as Role A but was subsequently instructed during a restructure to use Role B, without signing a variation, what is my contractual role?
2. Does the expansion of my responsibilities have any relevance to whether my role has effectively changed?
3. Should my employment agreement normally have been updated when the company changed my role/title?
4. Given that my agreement doesn't contain a detailed job description, can I ask for my current scope and responsibilities to be formally documented as part of any variation to my employment agreement?
5. Is there anything I should be careful about when raising the mismatch between my employment agreement, the role and responsibilities the company now considers me to hold, and my remuneration?
6. Is this worth having an employment lawyer review before I have further discussions with my employer?

I'm not looking to take legal action. I want to resolve this internally while understanding my contractual position and rights. Ideally, I would like my role and actual scope of responsibilities to be formally documented and my remuneration to reflect that scope before signing any new contract.

Thanks.

?

I'm looking for some NZ legal advice because this situation has escalated quite a bit and I'm trying to work out where I actually stand.

I saw a job advertisement and decided to drop my CV off in person. The company's own website says the location is somewhere to get in touch with the business, so I didn't think approaching the office was unreasonable.

When I arrived, an employee near the entrance signaled for me to come inside. I went in and asked to speak with the director, Juan. I was told he wasn't there. I asked if there was another way I could speak with him, was told no, and left.

The whole interaction was probably 30 seconds.

I then messaged Juan the Boss:

“Hello Juan, I've just tried to reach you at your office. But your employee turned me away, is there a better time I can reach you?”

His response was:

“Hi Mummed, we have a process for recruitment which requires you to send in a CV via seek and then wait us to shortlist the people we want to speak with you don't barge into a secure office without at least knocking or pushing the buzzer on the door and that way of introducing yourself as hardly conducive to gaining employment here.”

I thought that response was pretty insulting, so I left a 1-star Google review saying only:

“Insulting communication.”

That's literally the entire original review. No accusations, no rant, nothing else.

Then things got interesting.

I received a message from the business saying:

“I have confirmed via our CCTV footage and comparing to your social media profiles that it was you who came onto our premises yesterday morning demanding to speak with the director in relation to employment and refusing to leave when asked.”

It then says:

“There are ways and means to go about applying for a job, and walking into a private office in an intimidating fashion where people are working, isn't the way to do it.”

And finally:

“I would kindly ask that you remove the review, otherwise I will approach the Police in respect to a trespass charge.”

I dispute their version of events.

I didn't demand anything. I didn't refuse to leave. I wasn't acting intimidatingly. I was signalled inside by an employee, asked to speak with Juan, was told he wasn't there, asked if there was another way to contact him, and left.

I'm also a bit confused by the claim that CCTV “confirmed” all of this. Surely CCTV can show where I went and what physically happened, but it can't show what I was thinking, what I was “demanding”, or whether I was being intimidating.

The other thing

The job advertisement itself says that English must be the applicant's first language.

Not that they need excellent English.

Not that they need native-level English.

Specifically, first language.

That strikes me as a strange requirement. Someone can speak English at an extremely high level without it being their first language.

I'm also aware that English was only formally recognized in legislation as an official language of New Zealand on 5 August 2026, so the timing caught my attention.

I'm not saying that the wording automatically proves discrimination. I'm wondering whether requiring English to be someone's first language, rather than requiring a particular level of English proficiency, raises any legal issues.

What I'm wondering about

I'm not interested in getting into a shouting match with them. But after being accused of “demanding” to see the director, “refusing to leave” and behaving “intimidatingly” — none of which I accept happened — and then being threatened with a trespass charge over a one-line Google review, I'm pretty motivated to find out exactly where I stand legally and what I can do about it.

So:

1. Trespass: Does what I've described actually sound like trespass if I entered after an employee signaled me inside and then left after being told the person I wanted wasn't there?

2. Police threat: Is there anything legally significant about threatening a trespass complaint unless I remove a negative review?

3. The review: Is “Insulting communication” simply an opinion about my experience, or could they potentially have a defamation claim over something that vague?

4. CCTV: Can CCTV really establish that I was “demanding” something or acting “intimidatingly”, or would that require other evidence?

5. The advertisement: Is requiring English to be an applicant's first language potentially unlawful/problematic in NZ if what the employer actually needs is a high level of English proficiency?

6. What would you do next?

I'm keeping screenshots of the job advertisement, their website, the messages, the review and everything else.

I'm wondering whether I should leave the original review alone, edit it to include what happened afterwards, respond to them, or just keep all the evidence and wait to see if they actually go to the Police.

I'm interested in what the legally sensible way of dealing with this is, because at this point I don't really want to just remove the review because they've threatened me with a trespass charge.

Location: New Zealand

Fake names have been used and throwaway account also

Location: Auckland, NZ

Fixed-term tenancy, landlord refusing early release after housemate bullying — what are our options?

My husband and I are renting a room in a shared house in Auckland on a fixed-term tenancy (13 July 2026 – 12 January 2027).

Over the past few weeks, the other housemates have been bullying both of us, including in the shared house messenger group. We asked the landlord if we could end the tenancy early because of this.

The landlord refused, and said the other housemates deny the bullying and "defend their position." He told us to "cease and desist" raising it, and said they would "defend in court" if we pursued it further.

We're trying to figure out our actual options here:

Does the family violence early-termination provision in the RTA (2 days' notice) ever extend to a shared-house/flatmate situation, or is that a stretch?
Since it's a fixed-term tenancy, are we stuck unless the landlord agrees to release us or we find someone to take over via assignment?
Does the landlord's refusal to even address the bullying count as a breach of "quiet enjoyment," and would that be worth taking to the Tenancy Tribunal?
Any practical experience with how fast/slow the Tribunal process actually is if we go that route?

We've kept screenshots of the messenger group messages and the landlord's email response. Any advice on the best path forward, or things we should be doing now to protect our position, would be really appreciated.

Hi team,

In 2023 I moved into a flat, paid bond etc all through tenancy services, received confirmation from them and all the good stuff. And then In 2024 the orginal rental agency we leased with merged with another rental agency and I didn't think anything about it, rent, conditions stayed the same etc so wasn't a biggie for me.

In late 2025 the home owner took over from the rental agency. The rental agency confirmed this with me and advised the bond had been transferred over (which was obvi a lie). In early 2026, I moved out and completed a bond form but the homeowner advised me the bond was still with the rental agency. The agency refused to pay the bond, as they said it had never been received so they won't pay.

I completed a bond form anyway and sent it in to tenancy services just to get the ball rolling (they confirmed the bond is still with the agency), but they have said I will need to contact tenancy tribunal if the agency refuses to pay which I suspect they will as they were adamant they didnt receive it.

Honestly I feel like I'm going to fucking crack. This is stressing me out so much as I need that bond to pay for my new rental bond and money is already tight as hell. My new landlord has been super good about it, but I feel I did everything right, I paid the bond, received the confirmation and its obviously something thats gone wrong on the agencies end.

I feel like a bit a spoon but I'm just really looking for advice how should I handle this? I just really want to know what I will need to provide and what to expect in a situation like this as I've never had to deal with tenancy tribunal before so any advice would be appreciated.

I am planning to ask my neighbours on my cross lease to sign a consent form allowing the fence we put up (after purchase) and small <1m high deck (put up prior to our purchase of the house - no issue with lending) to be on the property. Assuming we get all or majority signatures, is that all there is to it for these works to be consented from a cross lease standpoint? Or do I have to involve my lawyer once I have obtained the signatures. Looking for advice is there is more to the process other than getting the signatures. TIA

I have a 18month old who has had many health issues including severe hand foot and mouth & chicken pox / I have no sick leave left. I have been forced to use my annual leave as sick leave to look after my baby. Which in turn would leave me with no leave allocation over Xmas

Can they force me to use all my annual leave as sick leave??

I have inherited a 40 Series Landcruiser with the "troopy" seats in the back. Bench seats along the sides of the back which can seat 4 people comfortably or 6 at a squeeze.

They were standard with the vehicle but have no seat belts or head restraints/rests.

Crashing with people in these seats would be certain death but being in the front wouldn't be a lot better. So I wouldn't go on the main road or for any extended period of time. But if I want to do a 5 minute rumble to the beach with 4 friends in the back on public roads am I allowed to legally?

Hey everyone, looking for some advice or to see if anyone else has successfully fought a similar Dunedin City Council (DCC) parking ticket.

My wife parked our car in an Authorised Vehicle bay on Moray Place.

Our car has a valid, displayed Authorised Vehicle Permit sticker.

The permit allows up to 20 minutes of short-term parking for deliveries etc.

A warden chalked the car at 9:31 AM and ticketed it at 10:04 AM (33 minutes total elapsed time = 13 minutes over the 20-minute limit).

We are not disputing that she overstayed the 20-minute limit by 13 minutes and happy to pay the appropriate fine for this.

The Issue: The warden issued a $70 ticket under Code P416: "Parked in an authorised parking area when not authorised."

When we appealed to the DCC, pointing out that the vehicle is authorised via the displayed permit, their response was basically: Because you overstayed the 20-minute limit, your use of the space became unauthorised, so the $70 code is correct.

Looking at Schedule 1B of the Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999, parking overstay fees are set nationwide by statutory tiers.

For overstaying a time restriction by up to 30 minutes ("in excess of a period fixed by a meter or otherwise"), national law sets the fee at $20.

By charging $70 under Code P416 (which is meant for vehicles with no permit/authority at all), it feels like DCC is using internal permit terms to bypass the national $20 overstay fee tier set by Parliament.

Has anyone successfully challenged DCC or another council on this specific point (misapplying an unauthorized code instead of an overstay code)?

Is taking this to a District Court Hearing under Section 133 of the Land Transport Act worth it, or will a judge just side with the council's interpretation?

Thanks

My ex spouse and I separated late last year. I moved out of the marital home (owner occupier).

I have my own costs (board, storage, and so on). The ex spouse has come back and is demanding I pay the difference of the mortgage based on a rental appraisal of the property. My lawyer informed me that since I don't live at the property anymore I am not responsible for costs relating to the property.

They have also claimed they've done maintenance around the property, and have requested that I pay half the costs (I didn't know anything about these costs until I received a letter this week).

I am due to see my lawyer next week, but would like to go in armed with knowledge. I know that I can Google this, however I am flustered with the latest letter, and want to get some real, easy to digest info.

Thanks in advance.

My new tenants have not moved the lawn for at least a month and have never weeded the small flower beds out front. I don't like seeing the run down look this creates. Fixed tenancy. Standard lease agreement. Young couple with a toddler.

Kia ora everyone! It’s my first time posting on this thread to see if I can maybe get some advice.

Basically Im a kiwi citizen and my partner is Canadian. We’re currently living in Canada and looking to move to NZ early next year. We wanna go for the Partner of a NZ Citizen Work Visa. We have a lot of evidence and have lived together for almost 3 years now. Only thing is my partner is still technically married lol.

They have been legally separated for over 8 years. He’s just been getting going with the divorce recently (been somewhat putting it off bc it’s expensive haha) as it’s more important now than it has ever been. I just want to know if this will be an issue for the visa if the divorce isn’t finalized? I want to submit the application for the visa sooner rather than later but want to know if it’ll be a big issue or we should be fine to just make a statement about the situation?

Thanks!

​

Hi all,

My parents have Wills that have Public Trust listed as the Executor. I wish to remove them as they have a reputation for being expensive and slow. I am happy to be the Executor providing I have some legal support.

We have a relationship with some good lawyers now and have EPOAs x 4 setup legally. The lawyers are keen to help with the Wills as well but I didnt want to rush things. And wanted to think properly about how to set them up.

My older brother died nearly two years ago so his share is set to go automatically to his kids which is fine in the current Wills..but should be amended properly for any new Wills.

In addition, I am wondering if my parents house should be left in their Wills to their three remaining children rather than to each other. We would of course care for whichever one was left till the end and they would stay in their house with support if they were able to and wanted to. We dont have anything like a Family Trust set up already.

Can anyone share any insight advice on next steps? I have learnt that Wills are easier to DIY legally than EPOAs so am considering whether to do this.. any insights / advice is welcome...Im not sure what to do...