What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5081083?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5081083?

Th Either Order 1 Above, Then The La…: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5081083?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5081083?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11448792-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5081083?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5081083?

Th Either Order 1 Above, Then The La…: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5081083?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5081083?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11448792-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Verner Place, Conifer Grove, Takanini 2112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5081083 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5081083. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
th either Order 1 above, then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work up to	$2,500.00		th either Order 1 above, then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work up to

Order

The tenant must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 5pm on Friday, 21 March 2025: a. Remove the structure erected on the boundary of the premises.
If the tenant fails to comply with either Order 1 above, then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work up to $2,500. These costs may be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord claims that the tenant has erected a structure on the premises which is unsafe, breaches Council requirements and needs to be removed. The landlord says that the tenant did not seek or obtain permission for the structure.
The parties agree that the structure is approximately 12m2. It is erected on the boundary (and the landlord says over the boundary of the premises). The tenant uses the structure as a shelter for his carving work. He would like the structure to stay. The parties have not been able to agree on a compromise or alternative solution.
The landlord gave evidence of advice from a maintenance contractor and asset manager, as follows: a. Independent Maintenance Contractor: “Illegal structure evident on the property exterior, positioned at the rear of the Garage. Two of the four posts holding the structure up were installed on the neighbouring property up against the boundary fence. The corrugated steel sheet used for the roof of the structure was placed in sloping direction where rainwater would drain into the neighbouring property, potentially allowing water to pool in the adjacent yard. Electrical cables, multi-plug power point and a long light fixture could be seen hung from the timber framing posing a H&S risk.” b. Asset Manager • “After onsite inspection, I can confirm this is an illegal structure, this site is located in the Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone which requires buildings to be setback at least 1m from the side or rear boundary. • The entire structure is obviously unsound, the workmanship was inferior and also there is no efficient drainage system (gutter/downpipe) in place. we have also noticed there are wirings, electrical cables under this illegal structure which posing a H&S risk.”
The asset manager has also attended site with a representative of the Auckland City Council. The landlord reports that the Council confirmed asset manager’s assessment of the structure. The landlord should have provided evidence directly from the Council.
Section 42 Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) provides that a tenant must not affix any fixture to the premises, or make any renovation, alteration, or addition of or to the premises, except in accordance with the tenancy agreement or with the prior written consent of the landlord (under s42A RTA). Neither of those exceptions apply in this case. “Premises” includes land.
Mr Jackson has erected a structure on the premises. The addition is more than minor (see s42B(2) RTA). The evidence establishes that the structure likely requires regulatory consent and, in its current format, poses safety risks in relation electrical wiring. Mr Jackson has breached s42 RTA.
The landlord has applied for a work order for removal of the structure. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. I find that a work order is appropriate. Given the safety and regulatory issues with the structure, I decline to make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA)(d) RTA.
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. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided evidence of the cost it would incur to remove the structure. It is prepared to allow Mr Jackson some time to demolish the structure but sought an order that it could do the work if Mr Jackson does not. I have made an order accordingly.
I encourage the parties to look for a solution that is compliant, structurally sound and which allows Mr Jackson to continue with his carving on site.
For completeness, I record that the landlord did not seek reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5081083. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
th either Order 1 above, then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work up to	$2,500.00		th either Order 1 above, then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work up to

Order

The tenant must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 5pm on Friday, 21 March 2025: a. Remove the structure erected on the boundary of the premises.
If the tenant fails to comply with either Order 1 above, then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work up to $2,500. These costs may be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord claims that the tenant has erected a structure on the premises which is unsafe, breaches Council requirements and needs to be removed. The landlord says that the tenant did not seek or obtain permission for the structure.
The parties agree that the structure is approximately 12m2. It is erected on the boundary (and the landlord says over the boundary of the premises). The tenant uses the structure as a shelter for his carving work. He would like the structure to stay. The parties have not been able to agree on a compromise or alternative solution.
The landlord gave evidence of advice from a maintenance contractor and asset manager, as follows: a. Independent Maintenance Contractor: “Illegal structure evident on the property exterior, positioned at the rear of the Garage. Two of the four posts holding the structure up were installed on the neighbouring property up against the boundary fence. The corrugated steel sheet used for the roof of the structure was placed in sloping direction where rainwater would drain into the neighbouring property, potentially allowing water to pool in the adjacent yard. Electrical cables, multi-plug power point and a long light fixture could be seen hung from the timber framing posing a H&S risk.” b. Asset Manager • “After onsite inspection, I can confirm this is an illegal structure, this site is located in the Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone which requires buildings to be setback at least 1m from the side or rear boundary. • The entire structure is obviously unsound, the workmanship was inferior and also there is no efficient drainage system (gutter/downpipe) in place. we have also noticed there are wirings, electrical cables under this illegal structure which posing a H&S risk.”
The asset manager has also attended site with a representative of the Auckland City Council. The landlord reports that the Council confirmed asset manager’s assessment of the structure. The landlord should have provided evidence directly from the Council.
Section 42 Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) provides that a tenant must not affix any fixture to the premises, or make any renovation, alteration, or addition of or to the premises, except in accordance with the tenancy agreement or with the prior written consent of the landlord (under s42A RTA). Neither of those exceptions apply in this case. “Premises” includes land.
Mr Jackson has erected a structure on the premises. The addition is more than minor (see s42B(2) RTA). The evidence establishes that the structure likely requires regulatory consent and, in its current format, poses safety risks in relation electrical wiring. Mr Jackson has breached s42 RTA.
The landlord has applied for a work order for removal of the structure. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. I find that a work order is appropriate. Given the safety and regulatory issues with the structure, I decline to make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA)(d) RTA.
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. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided evidence of the cost it would incur to remove the structure. It is prepared to allow Mr Jackson some time to demolish the structure but sought an order that it could do the work if Mr Jackson does not. I have made an order accordingly.
I encourage the parties to look for a solution that is compliant, structurally sound and which allows Mr Jackson to continue with his carving on site.
For completeness, I record that the landlord did not seek reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5081083 — Tenancy dispute at 8 Verner Place, Conifer Grove, Takanini 2112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5081083 — Tenancy dispute at 8 Verner Place, Conifer Grove, Takanini 2112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions