What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4852943?

The tribunal order states: On or before Thursday 8 August 2024, the tenant must remove the ramp

How much money was awarded in case 4852943?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4852943?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4852943?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10569184-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4852943?

The tribunal order states: On or before Thursday 8 August 2024, the tenant must remove the ramp

How much money was awarded in case 4852943?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4852943?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4852943?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10569184-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 2, 85 Totaravale Drive, Totara Vale, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4852943 — Tenancy dispute

Order

On or before Thursday 8 August 2024, the tenant must remove the ramp structure placed off the deck at the rear of the premises.
If the tenant fails to remove the ramp structure by Thursday 8 August 2024, then the landlord may undertake the work and remove the extended deck and ramp structure and charge the tenant the costs of its removal. These costs may be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly.
On or before Thursday 5 September 2024, the tenant must remove the extended deck structure if the following conditions have not been met by Thursday 8 August 2024: a. The boundary joist must have compliant fixings so that the deck extension meets the requirement of the current building code; b. Kāinga Ora must investigate further into whether there are concrete footings slightly below the boundary joist (deeper down than surface level photographed) as the tenant claims concrete footing were poured to fit the joist into when the extension was constructed. If Kāinga Ora find there are no concrete footings, the tenant ensures the concrete footings are compliant by Thursday 15 August 2024; c. Kāinga Ora must investigate whether the missing hangers shown in the photograph at the bottom of page 7 of the Business request for Assessor- Contract Assurance (ACA) assistance are on the original deck or on the deck extension by Thursday 8 August 2024. If the missing hangers are confirmed to be on the deck extension, the tenant must get the missing hangers replaced by Thursday 15 August 2024.
If the tenant fails to bring the deck extension up to current building standard requirements by Thursday 11 August 2024, then the tenant must have the deck extension removed at her cost by Thursday 5 September 2024. If she has not met either of these conditions by 5 September 2024, the landlord may undertake the work and remove the extended deck structure and charge the tenant the costs of its removal. These costs may be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was supported by Ms Taylor.
The landlord claims that the tenant has placed an illegal structure, namely an extended deck and ramp structure, off the existing deck at the rear of the property without getting the landlord’s written consent. The landlord wants these structures brought up to current building standard requirements or removed.
Under section 40(1)(a)-(e), Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), a tenant has specific obligations in relation to the tenancy premises.
Where the Tribunal finds the tenant has failed to comply with any of these obligations, where appropriate it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A work order may also authorise the landlord to undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of doing the work if the tenant should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. These costs can be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Has the tenant failed to comply with their obligations?

Section 42 RTA provides that the tenant shall not affix any fixture to the premises, or make any renovation, alteration, or addition of or to the premises, except (a) in accordance with the tenancy agreement; or (b) with the prior written consent of the landlord.
The tenant confirms she erected the ramp and extended deck structures 12.5 years ago without the landlord’s written consent. The tenant says she was given verbal consent by Housing New Zealand at the time as she needed the ramp for wheelchair access to the house temporarily.
I do not consider the tenant’s placement of the ramp or extended deck structure to be a minor change to which section 42B(4) to (6) RTA might apply.
The tenant argued she has respiratory issues and needs the ramp to access the house safely and has an old dog that suffers from arthritis that also requires the ramp to get in and out of the house. She also argues the structures are sound as they have withstood a lot of weather events in 12.5 years and have remained in place. Therefore, they are not a safety risk to anyone.
After me looking up the building code specifications for ramps from the Auckland Council website, which match those recorded in the assessors report, the tenant agrees that the ramp structure does not meet the current building code standards as follows: a. The slope angle of the access ramp is11.71° which is steep for people using wheelchair, when a compliant slope is between 7° and 1:12°; b. The handrail is not compliant. Access ramps require a handrail on both sides of the full length of the ramp; c. The width of the access ramp is only 960mm. To meet the current standards, the ramp must be at least 1200mm wide. d. The concrete footpath from the flight of the ramp is not level. This is an indication of the ground soil has sunk and the footpath has moved away from the house structure. Ramps are required to have a level landing area (a minimum of 1.2 metres x 1.2 metres) at the top and bottom so persons using it can stop and turn safely; e. There is a risk the window will get hit/struck when persons are using the ramp; f. The width of access between the deck and ramp is only 760mm including a temporary installed child safety gate. This is not accessible to wheelchairs; and g. The height of handrail around the timber deck is only 900mm and must now be 1100mm according to current building standards for ramps.
The landlord has expressed concerns that the ramp and deck extension do not meet the current building standards, do pose safety risks for the tenant and others using the ramp and as a government funded social housing provider, they need to prove they comply with current building standards and health and their health and safety obligation to any persons using these structures.
I therefore accede to the social housing landlord’s application for an order requiring the tenant to remove the ramp by Thursday 8 August 2024, failing which Kainga Ora will be allowed to remove the ramp at the tenant's cost.
The landlord has indicated it is willing to let the deck extension remain only if the tenant brings the extension up to current building standard requirements by Thursday 15 August 2024 and it has undertaken to conduct further investigations by Thursday 8 August 2024 into whether there are concrete footings slightly below the boundary joist (deeper down than surface level photographed) and whether the missing hangers shown in the photograph at the bottom of page 7 of the Business request for Assessor- Contract Assurance (ACA) assistance are on the original deck or on the deck extension.
If the deck extension is not signed off by the landlord’s assessor as being compliant with the required building standards by Thursday 11 August 2024, the tenant must remove the deck extension by Thursday 5 September 2024, or the landlord may undertake the work and remove the extended deck structure and charge the tenant the costs of its removal. These costs may be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly.

Order

On or before Thursday 8 August 2024, the tenant must remove the ramp structure placed off the deck at the rear of the premises.
If the tenant fails to remove the ramp structure by Thursday 8 August 2024, then the landlord may undertake the work and remove the extended deck and ramp structure and charge the tenant the costs of its removal. These costs may be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly.
On or before Thursday 5 September 2024, the tenant must remove the extended deck structure if the following conditions have not been met by Thursday 8 August 2024: a. The boundary joist must have compliant fixings so that the deck extension meets the requirement of the current building code; b. Kāinga Ora must investigate further into whether there are concrete footings slightly below the boundary joist (deeper down than surface level photographed) as the tenant claims concrete footing were poured to fit the joist into when the extension was constructed. If Kāinga Ora find there are no concrete footings, the tenant ensures the concrete footings are compliant by Thursday 15 August 2024; c. Kāinga Ora must investigate whether the missing hangers shown in the photograph at the bottom of page 7 of the Business request for Assessor- Contract Assurance (ACA) assistance are on the original deck or on the deck extension by Thursday 8 August 2024. If the missing hangers are confirmed to be on the deck extension, the tenant must get the missing hangers replaced by Thursday 15 August 2024.
If the tenant fails to bring the deck extension up to current building standard requirements by Thursday 11 August 2024, then the tenant must have the deck extension removed at her cost by Thursday 5 September 2024. If she has not met either of these conditions by 5 September 2024, the landlord may undertake the work and remove the extended deck structure and charge the tenant the costs of its removal. These costs may be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was supported by Ms Taylor.
The landlord claims that the tenant has placed an illegal structure, namely an extended deck and ramp structure, off the existing deck at the rear of the property without getting the landlord’s written consent. The landlord wants these structures brought up to current building standard requirements or removed.
Under section 40(1)(a)-(e), Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), a tenant has specific obligations in relation to the tenancy premises.
Where the Tribunal finds the tenant has failed to comply with any of these obligations, where appropriate it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A work order may also authorise the landlord to undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of doing the work if the tenant should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. These costs can be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Has the tenant failed to comply with their obligations?

Section 42 RTA provides that the tenant shall not affix any fixture to the premises, or make any renovation, alteration, or addition of or to the premises, except (a) in accordance with the tenancy agreement; or (b) with the prior written consent of the landlord.
The tenant confirms she erected the ramp and extended deck structures 12.5 years ago without the landlord’s written consent. The tenant says she was given verbal consent by Housing New Zealand at the time as she needed the ramp for wheelchair access to the house temporarily.
I do not consider the tenant’s placement of the ramp or extended deck structure to be a minor change to which section 42B(4) to (6) RTA might apply.
The tenant argued she has respiratory issues and needs the ramp to access the house safely and has an old dog that suffers from arthritis that also requires the ramp to get in and out of the house. She also argues the structures are sound as they have withstood a lot of weather events in 12.5 years and have remained in place. Therefore, they are not a safety risk to anyone.
After me looking up the building code specifications for ramps from the Auckland Council website, which match those recorded in the assessors report, the tenant agrees that the ramp structure does not meet the current building code standards as follows: a. The slope angle of the access ramp is11.71° which is steep for people using wheelchair, when a compliant slope is between 7° and 1:12°; b. The handrail is not compliant. Access ramps require a handrail on both sides of the full length of the ramp; c. The width of the access ramp is only 960mm. To meet the current standards, the ramp must be at least 1200mm wide. d. The concrete footpath from the flight of the ramp is not level. This is an indication of the ground soil has sunk and the footpath has moved away from the house structure. Ramps are required to have a level landing area (a minimum of 1.2 metres x 1.2 metres) at the top and bottom so persons using it can stop and turn safely; e. There is a risk the window will get hit/struck when persons are using the ramp; f. The width of access between the deck and ramp is only 760mm including a temporary installed child safety gate. This is not accessible to wheelchairs; and g. The height of handrail around the timber deck is only 900mm and must now be 1100mm according to current building standards for ramps.
The landlord has expressed concerns that the ramp and deck extension do not meet the current building standards, do pose safety risks for the tenant and others using the ramp and as a government funded social housing provider, they need to prove they comply with current building standards and health and their health and safety obligation to any persons using these structures.
I therefore accede to the social housing landlord’s application for an order requiring the tenant to remove the ramp by Thursday 8 August 2024, failing which Kainga Ora will be allowed to remove the ramp at the tenant's cost.
The landlord has indicated it is willing to let the deck extension remain only if the tenant brings the extension up to current building standard requirements by Thursday 15 August 2024 and it has undertaken to conduct further investigations by Thursday 8 August 2024 into whether there are concrete footings slightly below the boundary joist (deeper down than surface level photographed) and whether the missing hangers shown in the photograph at the bottom of page 7 of the Business request for Assessor- Contract Assurance (ACA) assistance are on the original deck or on the deck extension.
If the deck extension is not signed off by the landlord’s assessor as being compliant with the required building standards by Thursday 11 August 2024, the tenant must remove the deck extension by Thursday 5 September 2024, or the landlord may undertake the work and remove the extended deck structure and charge the tenant the costs of its removal. These costs may be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4852943 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 85 Totaravale Drive, Totara Vale, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4852943 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 85 Totaravale Drive, Totara Vale, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant failed to comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant failed to comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions