Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5392161 — 14-day notice at 6 Burleigh Road, Redwoodtown, Blenheim 7201
Published 29 January 2026 · Application 5392161
Mixed / unclear
- 14-day notice
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Mixed / unclear
From published order
Location
Blenheim
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
J Tam
Dispute themes
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| 026, then the landlord may undertake the work and remove the fence extension and charge the tenant the costs of its remo | $200.00 | 026, then the landlord may undertake the work and remove the fence extension and charge the tenant the costs of its remo |
Claims and awards for application 5392161. Verify on MoJ.
026, then the landlord may undertake the work and remove the fence extension and charge the tenant the costs of its remo
- Amount
- $200.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- 026, then the landlord may undertake the work and remove the fence extension and charge the tenant the costs of its remo
Order
- On or before 12 February 2026, the tenant must remove the corrugated iron fence extension (‘the fence extension’) erected on the left side of the fence of the premises.
- If the tenant fails to remove the fence extension by 12 February 2026, then the landlord may undertake the work and remove the fence extension and charge the tenant the costs of its removal, estimated at $200.00. These costs may be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly.
Reasons
- Only the landlord’s representative attended the hearing.
- The landlord claims that the tenant has placed an illegal structure, namely a corrugated iron fence extension (‘the fence extension’) erected to the side of the fence of the premises. The extension poses health and safety risks. The landlord wants the fence extension removed.
- 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 landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- 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. These costs can be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Has the tenant failed to comply with their obligations?
- I find that the tenant is in breach of the tenancy agreement and the RTA in the erection of the fence extension without the landlord’s consent.
- Clause 17 of the tenancy agreement states: “Please let us know if you would like to make or request changes to the premises. You must not make any alterations to the premises without our permission.”
- Clause 22 of the tenancy agreement further requires both landlord and tenant to comply with all local council bylaws that apply to the premises.
- Section 42 RTA provides that the tenant shall not affix any fixture to the premises, or make any renovation, alteration, or addition of or to the premises, except (a) in accordance with the tenancy agreement; or (b) with the prior written consent of the landlord.
- I do not consider the tenant’s erection of the fence extension to be a minor change to which section 42B(4) to (6) RTA might apply.
- I find the tenant to be in breach of clauses 17 and 22 of the tenancy agreement as well as section 42 RTA.
- The fence extension is unsafe and poses significant health and safety concerns/risks.
- The fence extension will weaken the existing timber fence. The fence extension makes the entire fence susceptible in windy conditions; irregular weather events may well topple it causing property damage and even personal injury to passing pedestrians and neighbours, as well as the tenant and her occupiers.
- A 14 day letter was issued on 1 October 2025 by the landlord to the tenant to remove the fence extension by 22 October 2025. The tenant failed to remedy the breach.
- Various reminders had been sent by the landlord about removing the fence extension but ignored by the tenant.
- I therefore accede to the social housing landlord’s application for an order requiring the tenant to remove the fence extension failing which Kainga Ora will be allowed to remove the fence extension at the tenant's cost.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s17, s40(1), s42, s42B(4), s78(1), s78(2AAB)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: termination 14day
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5392161?
The tribunal order states: On or before 12 February 2026, the tenant must remove the corrugated iron fence
How much money was awarded in case 5392161?
026, Then The Landlord May Undertake…: $200.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5392161?
The primary dispute was 14-day notice.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5392161?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13043404-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.