What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5304184?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5304184?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304184?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304184?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12307433-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5304184?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5304184?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304184?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304184?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12307433-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat A, 14 Hewer Crescent, Naenae, Lower Hutt 5011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5304184 — State of repair

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This application concerns the tenancy of Mr. Kevin Taylor at 14A Hewer Crescent, Naenae. The applicant, Mr. Taylor, is house-proud and maintains his property to a high standard, as evidenced by the photographs submitted in support of his application.
In his application, Mr. Taylor states that the landlord has failed in their obligations under Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.
The alleged failure relates to trees situated on the neighbouring property. Photographs provided show that there are large trees, several metres high, extending well above the height of the tenancy premises. The photographs also demonstrate that some of the trees located closer to the boundary line have branches and foliage that extend over and into the tenancy property where Mr. Taylor resides. Mr. Taylor has asked me to make a work order requiring Kāinga Ora to cut the trees back to the fence line.
The trees and foliage overlapping into Mr. Taylor’s tenancy appear to be situated below the level of the roof of the tenancy premises.
From time to time during the course of this tenancy, contractors for the respondent have attended the property and trimmed the foliage overlapping onto the tenancy premises.
On this occasion, Mr. Taylor requested that the respondent cut back the trees to the fence line. It appears that the respondent arranged for a tradesperson to assess the work. The tradesperson determined that the work was not required, as the level of foliage overlapping into the tenancy premises was limited and did not pose any risk. Understandably, Mr. Taylor was disappointed with this decision and sought assistance from the office of his local Member of Parliament. The MP’s office referred the matter to Kāinga Ora, who in turn arranged for the area manager to visit the property and assess the situation.
The area manager reached the same conclusion as the tradesperson: the work was not required, as the limited foliage and branches extending into the tenancy premises were consistent with what one would ordinarily expect in a property neighbouring one with trees. The evidence supplied by both parties is consistent with this assessment. The trees that overlap the boundary are tidy and unobtrusive.
It appears that that what has contributed to Mr. Taylors frustration is that the respondent communicated to both Mr. Taylor and the office of the MP that they had “logged the job.” The misunderstanding seems to have arisen because Mr. Taylor and the MP’s office understood this to mean that the trees would be cut, whereas the respondent’s intention was that the job would first be assessed. The respondent says they have taken the steps required of a landlord and assessed the request. Following from that assessment, the respondent has taken the position that the work is not necessary at this stage.
Mr. Taylor is adamant that Kāinga Ora has confirmed to him that the work would be carried out, and he maintains that the same undertaking was given to the office of the local MP. He has also offered to contact the MP’s office to confirm this.
Ultimately, the decision to be made is whether the landlord has failed in its obligation to maintain the property. Mr. Taylor has put forward two reasons why he believes this is so and why the trees should be cut back: (a) The trees tower over his property, and if they were to fall, they could cause severe damage, creating a health and safety risk. (b) The leaves from these trees fall into his gutters, leading to blockages. Mr. Taylor has provided photographs showing water overflowing from the gutters as a result.
The respondent’s obligation and entitlement with respect to the trees is limited to cutting those branches that cross the boundary line into the tenancy premises. The respondent is not responsible for or entitled to cut or remove trees or branches that do not traverse the boundary.
When Mr. Taylor’s evidence is assessed against the respondent’s responsibility and entitlement to cut only those parts of the trees that cross the boundary line, the difficulty is that the risks he has described relate to the trees towering above his property but situated firmly within the neighbouring land. The foliage and branches that extend into the tenancy premises are located below the roof level, and therefore they are not causing the gutters to clog. They also pose no health and safety risk, as they do not present any threat of toppling onto the house. Kāinga Ora has also advised that they communicated with the owner of the neighbouring property, who has communicated to them that the trees are healthy and pose no risk.
Mr. Taylor has also stated that the branches and foliage traversing the tenancy boundary drop a significant number of leaves into his property and create shade that makes it difficult for him to dry his clothes. As a result, he says he has incurred additional costs for drying and laundry.
Both Mr. Taylor and Kāinga Ora have provided photographs of the yard in question. These photographs show that the trees on the boundary extend into the property only in a limited way and, when assessed in isolation, provide only limited shade.
I fully accept Mr. Taylor’s evidence that he is a good tenant, that he is house- proud, and that he maintains the property to a high standard. I also acknowledge his strong preference that Kāinga Ora keep the trees cut back along the fence line.
Kāinga Ora has also acknowledged Mr. Taylor’s preference and has stated that they will continue to monitor the situation and may cut the trees in the future. I encourage them to do so at regular intervals and to maintain open communication with Mr. Taylor. There is nothing preventing the respondent from engaging with his request should they decide to proceed with the work.
If Mr. Taylor remains concerned about the risks that the neighbouring trees pose, then I encourage him to raise those concerns with the appropriate authorities.
However, I cannot use the powers of the Tribunal to impose a work order on the landlord solely to satisfy the applicants preference. To do so would be an inappropriate exercise of the Tribunal’s powers. I must therefore dismiss the application.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This application concerns the tenancy of Mr. Kevin Taylor at 14A Hewer Crescent, Naenae. The applicant, Mr. Taylor, is house-proud and maintains his property to a high standard, as evidenced by the photographs submitted in support of his application.
In his application, Mr. Taylor states that the landlord has failed in their obligations under Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair.
The alleged failure relates to trees situated on the neighbouring property. Photographs provided show that there are large trees, several metres high, extending well above the height of the tenancy premises. The photographs also demonstrate that some of the trees located closer to the boundary line have branches and foliage that extend over and into the tenancy property where Mr. Taylor resides. Mr. Taylor has asked me to make a work order requiring Kāinga Ora to cut the trees back to the fence line.
The trees and foliage overlapping into Mr. Taylor’s tenancy appear to be situated below the level of the roof of the tenancy premises.
From time to time during the course of this tenancy, contractors for the respondent have attended the property and trimmed the foliage overlapping onto the tenancy premises.
On this occasion, Mr. Taylor requested that the respondent cut back the trees to the fence line. It appears that the respondent arranged for a tradesperson to assess the work. The tradesperson determined that the work was not required, as the level of foliage overlapping into the tenancy premises was limited and did not pose any risk. Understandably, Mr. Taylor was disappointed with this decision and sought assistance from the office of his local Member of Parliament. The MP’s office referred the matter to Kāinga Ora, who in turn arranged for the area manager to visit the property and assess the situation.
The area manager reached the same conclusion as the tradesperson: the work was not required, as the limited foliage and branches extending into the tenancy premises were consistent with what one would ordinarily expect in a property neighbouring one with trees. The evidence supplied by both parties is consistent with this assessment. The trees that overlap the boundary are tidy and unobtrusive.
It appears that that what has contributed to Mr. Taylors frustration is that the respondent communicated to both Mr. Taylor and the office of the MP that they had “logged the job.” The misunderstanding seems to have arisen because Mr. Taylor and the MP’s office understood this to mean that the trees would be cut, whereas the respondent’s intention was that the job would first be assessed. The respondent says they have taken the steps required of a landlord and assessed the request. Following from that assessment, the respondent has taken the position that the work is not necessary at this stage.
Mr. Taylor is adamant that Kāinga Ora has confirmed to him that the work would be carried out, and he maintains that the same undertaking was given to the office of the local MP. He has also offered to contact the MP’s office to confirm this.
Ultimately, the decision to be made is whether the landlord has failed in its obligation to maintain the property. Mr. Taylor has put forward two reasons why he believes this is so and why the trees should be cut back: (a) The trees tower over his property, and if they were to fall, they could cause severe damage, creating a health and safety risk. (b) The leaves from these trees fall into his gutters, leading to blockages. Mr. Taylor has provided photographs showing water overflowing from the gutters as a result.
The respondent’s obligation and entitlement with respect to the trees is limited to cutting those branches that cross the boundary line into the tenancy premises. The respondent is not responsible for or entitled to cut or remove trees or branches that do not traverse the boundary.
When Mr. Taylor’s evidence is assessed against the respondent’s responsibility and entitlement to cut only those parts of the trees that cross the boundary line, the difficulty is that the risks he has described relate to the trees towering above his property but situated firmly within the neighbouring land. The foliage and branches that extend into the tenancy premises are located below the roof level, and therefore they are not causing the gutters to clog. They also pose no health and safety risk, as they do not present any threat of toppling onto the house. Kāinga Ora has also advised that they communicated with the owner of the neighbouring property, who has communicated to them that the trees are healthy and pose no risk.
Mr. Taylor has also stated that the branches and foliage traversing the tenancy boundary drop a significant number of leaves into his property and create shade that makes it difficult for him to dry his clothes. As a result, he says he has incurred additional costs for drying and laundry.
Both Mr. Taylor and Kāinga Ora have provided photographs of the yard in question. These photographs show that the trees on the boundary extend into the property only in a limited way and, when assessed in isolation, provide only limited shade.
I fully accept Mr. Taylor’s evidence that he is a good tenant, that he is house- proud, and that he maintains the property to a high standard. I also acknowledge his strong preference that Kāinga Ora keep the trees cut back along the fence line.
Kāinga Ora has also acknowledged Mr. Taylor’s preference and has stated that they will continue to monitor the situation and may cut the trees in the future. I encourage them to do so at regular intervals and to maintain open communication with Mr. Taylor. There is nothing preventing the respondent from engaging with his request should they decide to proceed with the work.
If Mr. Taylor remains concerned about the risks that the neighbouring trees pose, then I encourage him to raise those concerns with the appropriate authorities.
However, I cannot use the powers of the Tribunal to impose a work order on the landlord solely to satisfy the applicants preference. To do so would be an inappropriate exercise of the Tribunal’s powers. I must therefore dismiss the application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304184 — State of repair at Unit/Flat A, 14 Hewer Crescent, Naenae, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304184 — State of repair at Unit/Flat A, 14 Hewer Crescent, Naenae, Lower Hutt 5011

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