What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5122252?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders are made in relation to this order.

How much money was awarded in case 5122252?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5122252?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5122252?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11436006-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5122252?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders are made in relation to this order.

How much money was awarded in case 5122252?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5122252?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5122252?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11436006-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3C Vickerman Street, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5122252 — Smoke alarms

Order

No suppression orders are made in relation to this order.
The tenant must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by Monday 17 March 2025: a. Remove the structure built and attached to the carport at the premises; b. Remove all fencing and other structures built on the exterior grounds of the premises; c. Remove all inorganic rubbish and building materials stored on the exterior grounds at the premises; d. Restore the exterior grounds at the premises to their original condition at the start of the tenancy and to a reasonably clean and tidy condition.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by teleconference.
The landlord claims that the tenant, or someone at the property with her permission, has erected unsafe structures on the exterior grounds of the premises including a structure to enclose the carport and fencing. The tenant is also storing a large amount of inorganic waste and building materials on site so that it is in a poor condition. The items on site would likely be a fire hazard, trip hazard and attract rodents at the property. The landlord wants the problem fixed.
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 tenant to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) RTA.
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. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms; a failure to comply with the healthy homes standards; decontamination; a failure to comply with a standard of fitness or other requirement applying by virtue of section 120C of the Health Act 1956; or a failure to comply with any other requirement relating to health or safety under any enactment. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) 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 and alternative monetary 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) RTA.

Has the tenant failed to comply with their obligations?

I am satisfied on the evidence, including photos taken of the exterior grounds at the premises, that the tenant is in breach of her obligations under the RTA as follows: a. The exterior grounds are not reasonably clean and tidy with inorganic waste and building materials strewn over the property in breach of s40(1)(c) RTA; b. Unsafe fencing and other structures have been built at the property without the consent of the landlord in breach of section 42(1) RTA; c. The condition of the grounds and the structures built by the tenant are causing a potential fire hazard; and health and safety hazard in that the waste and materials stored on the grounds are likely attracting vermin; are a tripping hazard and are unsightly. This likely breaches several enactments concerning health and safety at the premises
On 26 September 2024, the landlord issued the tenant with a 14-day notice to remedy the breaches by 15 October 2024. While the tenant made some attempt to tidy the grounds she did not fully comply with the notice. The landlord also stated that they have made numerous efforts to give the tenant further time to deal with the problem and have put her in touch with agencies who may be able to assist with the clean-up tasks. She has rejected the assistance. As a last resort the landlord has made this application.
Ms Teo noted that her partner has built the structures. Erecting a fence and closing in the carport have arisen out of concerns that people broke into the property and stole a car and have been freely accessing the property to steal items. However, as discussed at the hearing, if the tenant has security concerns and wishes to erect a fence or other safeguards, this must be discussed with the landlord and formal consent obtained. There is a process to follow whereby the landlord would want to know exactly what is to be built; what materials will be used and so on; before approval can be considered and given. I encourage Ms Teo to discuss this with her case manager. However, in the meantime the current structures and all inorganic waste and building materials must be removed to restore the grounds to their original state and to a clean and tidy condition.
I find that the work orders made above are justified and I have given the tenant until 17 March 2025 to comply with the work orders.
I consider that the nature of the work required falls under section 78(2AA) RTA regrading health and safety such that an alternative monetary order under s78(2) is not appropriate in this case.
Subsequent to the hearing, the landlord advised that it does not seek an order enabling the landlord to undertake the work should the tenant fail to comply with the work orders. Therefore, I make no order to that effect. However, should the tenant fail to comply with the work orders, I note that the landlord could bring a further application to the Tribunal for breach of a work order if necessary. Suppression
The landlord asked the Tribunal to consider an order suppressing the tenant’s name and identifying details. The tenant also indicated that she would like suppression.
Under s95A(1) RTA, the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Under s95A(4) RTA the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that the name or any identifying particulars of any party not be published.
The tenant has not succeeded in the proceedings so is not entitled to suppression on that basis. It was suggested that publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details would not be in the public interest. However, the tenant was unable to provide any compelling reason as to why her details should be suppressed. Therefore, I find that there is no reason not to order publication in this case.

Order

No suppression orders are made in relation to this order.
The tenant must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by Monday 17 March 2025: a. Remove the structure built and attached to the carport at the premises; b. Remove all fencing and other structures built on the exterior grounds of the premises; c. Remove all inorganic rubbish and building materials stored on the exterior grounds at the premises; d. Restore the exterior grounds at the premises to their original condition at the start of the tenancy and to a reasonably clean and tidy condition.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by teleconference.
The landlord claims that the tenant, or someone at the property with her permission, has erected unsafe structures on the exterior grounds of the premises including a structure to enclose the carport and fencing. The tenant is also storing a large amount of inorganic waste and building materials on site so that it is in a poor condition. The items on site would likely be a fire hazard, trip hazard and attract rodents at the property. The landlord wants the problem fixed.
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 tenant to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) RTA.
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. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms; a failure to comply with the healthy homes standards; decontamination; a failure to comply with a standard of fitness or other requirement applying by virtue of section 120C of the Health Act 1956; or a failure to comply with any other requirement relating to health or safety under any enactment. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) 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 and alternative monetary 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) RTA.

Has the tenant failed to comply with their obligations?

I am satisfied on the evidence, including photos taken of the exterior grounds at the premises, that the tenant is in breach of her obligations under the RTA as follows: a. The exterior grounds are not reasonably clean and tidy with inorganic waste and building materials strewn over the property in breach of s40(1)(c) RTA; b. Unsafe fencing and other structures have been built at the property without the consent of the landlord in breach of section 42(1) RTA; c. The condition of the grounds and the structures built by the tenant are causing a potential fire hazard; and health and safety hazard in that the waste and materials stored on the grounds are likely attracting vermin; are a tripping hazard and are unsightly. This likely breaches several enactments concerning health and safety at the premises
On 26 September 2024, the landlord issued the tenant with a 14-day notice to remedy the breaches by 15 October 2024. While the tenant made some attempt to tidy the grounds she did not fully comply with the notice. The landlord also stated that they have made numerous efforts to give the tenant further time to deal with the problem and have put her in touch with agencies who may be able to assist with the clean-up tasks. She has rejected the assistance. As a last resort the landlord has made this application.
Ms Teo noted that her partner has built the structures. Erecting a fence and closing in the carport have arisen out of concerns that people broke into the property and stole a car and have been freely accessing the property to steal items. However, as discussed at the hearing, if the tenant has security concerns and wishes to erect a fence or other safeguards, this must be discussed with the landlord and formal consent obtained. There is a process to follow whereby the landlord would want to know exactly what is to be built; what materials will be used and so on; before approval can be considered and given. I encourage Ms Teo to discuss this with her case manager. However, in the meantime the current structures and all inorganic waste and building materials must be removed to restore the grounds to their original state and to a clean and tidy condition.
I find that the work orders made above are justified and I have given the tenant until 17 March 2025 to comply with the work orders.
I consider that the nature of the work required falls under section 78(2AA) RTA regrading health and safety such that an alternative monetary order under s78(2) is not appropriate in this case.
Subsequent to the hearing, the landlord advised that it does not seek an order enabling the landlord to undertake the work should the tenant fail to comply with the work orders. Therefore, I make no order to that effect. However, should the tenant fail to comply with the work orders, I note that the landlord could bring a further application to the Tribunal for breach of a work order if necessary. Suppression
The landlord asked the Tribunal to consider an order suppressing the tenant’s name and identifying details. The tenant also indicated that she would like suppression.
Under s95A(1) RTA, the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Under s95A(4) RTA the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that the name or any identifying particulars of any party not be published.
The tenant has not succeeded in the proceedings so is not entitled to suppression on that basis. It was suggested that publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details would not be in the public interest. However, the tenant was unable to provide any compelling reason as to why her details should be suppressed. Therefore, I find that there is no reason not to order publication in this case.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5122252 — Smoke alarms at 3C Vickerman Street, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5122252 — Smoke alarms at 3C Vickerman Street, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant failed to comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant failed to comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions