What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5119576?

The tribunal order states: By. 5 pm Wednesday 20 April 2025 the tenant is to:

How much money was awarded in case 5119576?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5119576?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5119576?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11655355-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5119576?

The tribunal order states: By. 5 pm Wednesday 20 April 2025 the tenant is to:

How much money was awarded in case 5119576?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5119576?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5119576?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11655355-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

22 Aarts Avenue, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5119576 — Tenancy dispute

Order

By. 5 pm Wednesday 20 April 2025 the tenant is to: a. Remove the fence, the lean-to and the garage extension. b. Remove the materials used in their construction from the premises. c. Return the premises to the condition they were in prior to the construction of the fence, lean-to and garage extension and make good any damage caused to the premises in removing the tenant’s alterations. d. Make an application to the landlord for consent to the deck extension and to comply with any reasonable safety requirements the landlord may make before granting its consent.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord’s application was for an order requiring the tenant: a. To remove the fence he has constructed. b. To remove the lean-to structure he has built along the side the garage. c. To remove the roofing area he has attached to the front of the garage (“the garage extension”). d. To make the decking area safe and to obtain the written consent of the landlord to the extension to the decking area he has constructed.
The landlord provided photographic evidence of the structures which the tenant has built on the premises.
The tenant gave evidence that a prior property manager of the landlord gave him verbal consent to build the structures. He wanted the 1.8 meter front fence to keep his children safe, the lean-to on the garage for his tools and materials and the roof extension to the garage to extend his living space and provide protection from the rain.
The landlord gave evidence that: a. Denied that it had ever given consent to the structures being built. It has searched its records and found no such evidence, nor evidence that consent was ever sought. b. It believes the fence is unsafe as it is not properly braced or securely constructed. It does not comply with the landlord’s requirements for front yard fences which require a fence to be no more than 1.2 meters high for security reasons. c. Neither the lean-to or the garage extension have consents from the local authority which would have been required because of the roof area and their impact on rainwater collection and drainage. They are both unsafe structurally. The garage extension also includes the provision of power via an extension cord and multi-plug which is also unsafe. d. While it did not consent to the extension of the deck area, it will consider a retrospective application from the tenant. e. It has issued a breach notice to the tenant on 15 November 2024 noting that the tenant was in breach of Clause 30 of the tenancy agreement by building structures without the landlord’s consent and requiring the tenant to remove the structures. Discussion and decision
Neither the tenant nor the landlord have any evidence that the landlord consented to the structures being built. The tenant is therefore in breach of Clause 30 of the tenancy agreement and section 42 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Because consent has not been obtained by the tenant for these substantial alterations to the premises, it is appropriate that the Tribunal make an order under section 77(2)(l) RTA requiring the tenant to remove the fence, the lean-to and the garage extension, to remove the materials used for their construction from the premises and to make good any damage the tenant’s alterations have caused to the premises.
If the tenant does not remove the fence, lean-to and garage extension by the date provided in this order, then the landlord has advised that it will make a further application to the Tribunal seeking a work order for their removal. This will inevitably involve significant cost for the tenant and he is to be encouraged to undertake the removal work himself without further delay.
The landlord indicated at the hearing that it may allow the deck extension to stay, provided the tenant made an application to it for retrospective consent and undertook whatever work the landlord considered was necessary to make the deck extension safe. The tenant is encouraged to make the application for consent and to comply with any further safety requirements the landlord may impose. Otherwise, the landlord may apply for its removal.

Order

By. 5 pm Wednesday 20 April 2025 the tenant is to: a. Remove the fence, the lean-to and the garage extension. b. Remove the materials used in their construction from the premises. c. Return the premises to the condition they were in prior to the construction of the fence, lean-to and garage extension and make good any damage caused to the premises in removing the tenant’s alterations. d. Make an application to the landlord for consent to the deck extension and to comply with any reasonable safety requirements the landlord may make before granting its consent.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord’s application was for an order requiring the tenant: a. To remove the fence he has constructed. b. To remove the lean-to structure he has built along the side the garage. c. To remove the roofing area he has attached to the front of the garage (“the garage extension”). d. To make the decking area safe and to obtain the written consent of the landlord to the extension to the decking area he has constructed.
The landlord provided photographic evidence of the structures which the tenant has built on the premises.
The tenant gave evidence that a prior property manager of the landlord gave him verbal consent to build the structures. He wanted the 1.8 meter front fence to keep his children safe, the lean-to on the garage for his tools and materials and the roof extension to the garage to extend his living space and provide protection from the rain.
The landlord gave evidence that: a. Denied that it had ever given consent to the structures being built. It has searched its records and found no such evidence, nor evidence that consent was ever sought. b. It believes the fence is unsafe as it is not properly braced or securely constructed. It does not comply with the landlord’s requirements for front yard fences which require a fence to be no more than 1.2 meters high for security reasons. c. Neither the lean-to or the garage extension have consents from the local authority which would have been required because of the roof area and their impact on rainwater collection and drainage. They are both unsafe structurally. The garage extension also includes the provision of power via an extension cord and multi-plug which is also unsafe. d. While it did not consent to the extension of the deck area, it will consider a retrospective application from the tenant. e. It has issued a breach notice to the tenant on 15 November 2024 noting that the tenant was in breach of Clause 30 of the tenancy agreement by building structures without the landlord’s consent and requiring the tenant to remove the structures. Discussion and decision
Neither the tenant nor the landlord have any evidence that the landlord consented to the structures being built. The tenant is therefore in breach of Clause 30 of the tenancy agreement and section 42 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Because consent has not been obtained by the tenant for these substantial alterations to the premises, it is appropriate that the Tribunal make an order under section 77(2)(l) RTA requiring the tenant to remove the fence, the lean-to and the garage extension, to remove the materials used for their construction from the premises and to make good any damage the tenant’s alterations have caused to the premises.
If the tenant does not remove the fence, lean-to and garage extension by the date provided in this order, then the landlord has advised that it will make a further application to the Tribunal seeking a work order for their removal. This will inevitably involve significant cost for the tenant and he is to be encouraged to undertake the removal work himself without further delay.
The landlord indicated at the hearing that it may allow the deck extension to stay, provided the tenant made an application to it for retrospective consent and undertook whatever work the landlord considered was necessary to make the deck extension safe. The tenant is encouraged to make the application for consent and to comply with any further safety requirements the landlord may impose. Otherwise, the landlord may apply for its removal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5119576 — Tenancy dispute at 22 Aarts Avenue, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5119576 — Tenancy dispute at 22 Aarts Avenue, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions