What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4916973?

The tribunal order states: The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be

How much money was awarded in case 4916973?

Her Order 2 Or 3 Above, Then The Ten…: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4916973?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4916973?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11389674-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4916973?

The tribunal order states: The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be

How much money was awarded in case 4916973?

Her Order 2 Or 3 Above, Then The Ten…: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4916973?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4916973?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11389674-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 24, 88 Ash Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4916973 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4916973. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
her Order 2 or 3 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to	$1,500.00		her Order 2 or 3 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to

Order

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 5.00 pm on Wednesday 5 March 2025: a. The fence adjacent to Keith Alan Richmond’s property at the above address, as depicted in photographs on pages 8, 9 and 10 of the Landlord’s evidence must be fully repainted on the property side, and also on the street side if Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities deems it necessary. b. With regard to the same fence, all gaps must be filled and loose panels secured.
As an alternative to compliance with Order 2, the landlord must pay the tenant $1,500.00 immediately.
If the landlord fails to comply with either Order 2 or 3 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $1,500.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay Keith Alan Richmond $20.44 as reimbursement for the filing fee immediately.
The tenant’s claim for remediation of the lawn is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant’s claims relate to damage that has occurred to a grass lawn and to a boundary fence firstly as a result of flooding in January 2023, which deposited silt on the lawn, then following remediation of the lawn in March 2023, when a water pipe burst in June 2023 and again deposited silt on the lawn, and caused some panels on the fibreglass clad fence to separate.
On 29 February 2024 the tenant served a 14-day notice on the landlord to remedy the fence and the lawn. On 7 March 2024 Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities sent three people (an Asset Manager, a Maintenance Supervisor and a Senior Housing Support Manager) to the property to undertake an assessment. On 18 April 2024 Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities wrote a letter to the tenant saying they had decided the fence was not aesthetically pleasing, but it did not pose a health and safety risk to anyone, and therefore they would not replace it as the tenant was requesting. They logged a job to remove the top three inches of soil from the lawn, replace it with new soil and sow new grass. This work was then done.
The tenant says the silt is still present under the current layer of topsoil, and he suffers health effects because of it. The tenant also points to the stones and weeds present in the current lawn, which he says is unacceptable.
The tenant is seeking a work order to have the boundary fence replaced and the lawn dug up again, and re-sown.
Both the landlord and the tenant presented photographs which although quite different from each other, are not inconsistent with each other.
The tenant also produced a quote from Medusa Contracting Limited to replace the fence and the lawn. He stated that if he wasn’t successful in his claims today, he was seeking an order that Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities allow him to remedy the fence and the lawn at his own cost. Preliminary considerations Burden of proof
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. One of these standards is that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. That means the party bring the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the burden of proof. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging the is burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarth (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.
If the claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The landlord is required to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes, see the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) section 45(1)(b).
Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with this obligation, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The lawn
The photographs provided by both parties show the lawn to currently be in a worse than average condition. The clearest photos were provided by the landlord, and they show that during inspections in the second half of 2024, the lawn had more growth than it currently has. The landlord stated that at the moment the ground is dry and the lawn is suffering because of this. I accept the landlord’s analysis on this point.
I also accept the tenant’s submissions that the lawn has many weeds and some stones in it. I am not persuaded on the evidence provided to me that it is more likely than not that the current soil was laid on top of silt.
Whereas the lawn is far from gold standard, in my view it is adequate to fulfil the landlord’s responsibilities under section 45 of the RTA.
I do not find the tenant has proved his claim that the landlord has failed to maintain the lawn. The boundary fence
Black and white photographs produced by the tenant of the boundary fence show some gaps where fibreglass (or similar material) panels appear to have separated. On the whole, the photographs are too close up to provide adequate information about the overall condition of the fence.
The landlord produced colour photographs which show a poorly maintained (in as much as it is in desperate need of a paint) fence, but do not show the gaps that the tenant has referred to.
The Medusa report refers to a damaged fence post and a loose middle bay section.
I have no trouble finding that Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities has not maintained the fence according to their obligations under the RTA. This is based simply on the photographs showing that the fence needs painting. However, it may also be the case that panels are loose and there are gaps between the panels. The tenant’s request to do the work himself
Understandably the landlord is not prepared to allow the tenant to take responsibility for digging up and resowing the lawn or demolishing and rebuilding or repairing the boundary fence. Except as set out in Order 3, I do not order that Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities allow the tenant to undertake the works as requested.
Because Keith Alan Richmond has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4916973. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
her Order 2 or 3 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to	$1,500.00		her Order 2 or 3 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to

Order

The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 5.00 pm on Wednesday 5 March 2025: a. The fence adjacent to Keith Alan Richmond’s property at the above address, as depicted in photographs on pages 8, 9 and 10 of the Landlord’s evidence must be fully repainted on the property side, and also on the street side if Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities deems it necessary. b. With regard to the same fence, all gaps must be filled and loose panels secured.
As an alternative to compliance with Order 2, the landlord must pay the tenant $1,500.00 immediately.
If the landlord fails to comply with either Order 2 or 3 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $1,500.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must pay Keith Alan Richmond $20.44 as reimbursement for the filing fee immediately.
The tenant’s claim for remediation of the lawn is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant’s claims relate to damage that has occurred to a grass lawn and to a boundary fence firstly as a result of flooding in January 2023, which deposited silt on the lawn, then following remediation of the lawn in March 2023, when a water pipe burst in June 2023 and again deposited silt on the lawn, and caused some panels on the fibreglass clad fence to separate.
On 29 February 2024 the tenant served a 14-day notice on the landlord to remedy the fence and the lawn. On 7 March 2024 Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities sent three people (an Asset Manager, a Maintenance Supervisor and a Senior Housing Support Manager) to the property to undertake an assessment. On 18 April 2024 Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities wrote a letter to the tenant saying they had decided the fence was not aesthetically pleasing, but it did not pose a health and safety risk to anyone, and therefore they would not replace it as the tenant was requesting. They logged a job to remove the top three inches of soil from the lawn, replace it with new soil and sow new grass. This work was then done.
The tenant says the silt is still present under the current layer of topsoil, and he suffers health effects because of it. The tenant also points to the stones and weeds present in the current lawn, which he says is unacceptable.
The tenant is seeking a work order to have the boundary fence replaced and the lawn dug up again, and re-sown.
Both the landlord and the tenant presented photographs which although quite different from each other, are not inconsistent with each other.
The tenant also produced a quote from Medusa Contracting Limited to replace the fence and the lawn. He stated that if he wasn’t successful in his claims today, he was seeking an order that Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities allow him to remedy the fence and the lawn at his own cost. Preliminary considerations Burden of proof
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. One of these standards is that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. That means the party bring the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the burden of proof. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging the is burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarth (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.
If the claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The landlord is required to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes, see the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) section 45(1)(b).
Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with this obligation, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The lawn
The photographs provided by both parties show the lawn to currently be in a worse than average condition. The clearest photos were provided by the landlord, and they show that during inspections in the second half of 2024, the lawn had more growth than it currently has. The landlord stated that at the moment the ground is dry and the lawn is suffering because of this. I accept the landlord’s analysis on this point.
I also accept the tenant’s submissions that the lawn has many weeds and some stones in it. I am not persuaded on the evidence provided to me that it is more likely than not that the current soil was laid on top of silt.
Whereas the lawn is far from gold standard, in my view it is adequate to fulfil the landlord’s responsibilities under section 45 of the RTA.
I do not find the tenant has proved his claim that the landlord has failed to maintain the lawn. The boundary fence
Black and white photographs produced by the tenant of the boundary fence show some gaps where fibreglass (or similar material) panels appear to have separated. On the whole, the photographs are too close up to provide adequate information about the overall condition of the fence.
The landlord produced colour photographs which show a poorly maintained (in as much as it is in desperate need of a paint) fence, but do not show the gaps that the tenant has referred to.
The Medusa report refers to a damaged fence post and a loose middle bay section.
I have no trouble finding that Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities has not maintained the fence according to their obligations under the RTA. This is based simply on the photographs showing that the fence needs painting. However, it may also be the case that panels are loose and there are gaps between the panels. The tenant’s request to do the work himself
Understandably the landlord is not prepared to allow the tenant to take responsibility for digging up and resowing the lawn or demolishing and rebuilding or repairing the boundary fence. Except as set out in Order 3, I do not order that Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities allow the tenant to undertake the works as requested.
Because Keith Alan Richmond has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4916973 — State of repair at Unit/Flat 24, 88 Ash Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4916973 — State of repair at Unit/Flat 24, 88 Ash Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions