What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4722490?

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 4722490?

Has To Implement Order 2 Then The La…: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4722490?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4722490?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9837470-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4722490?

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 4722490?

Has To Implement Order 2 Then The La…: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4722490?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4722490?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9837470-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12 Heyford Close, Mangere, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4722490 — Smoke alarms

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4722490. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
has to implement Order 2 then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work up to	$2,500.00		has to implement Order 2 then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work up to

The tenant must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 13 February 2024: a. Removal of the small carport to the side of the house and at the top of the driveway (“the structure”); b. Remedied any damage caused from the installation of the structure and/or its removal.

As an alternative to compliance with Order 2, where the tenant has not removed the structure by 13 February 2024 and remedied any damage from its installation and/or removal, the Landlord will take the small carport down and remedy any damage to the premises from the installation/removal of the structure.

If the tenant fails to comply with either Order 1 above, and the Landlord has to implement Order 2 then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work up to $2,500.00. These costs may be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord claims that the tenant, without the written permission of the landlord, built two carports and a roof over the deck that do not meet the current building regulations/industry standards and are creating an unacceptable health and safety risk. 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 landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) of the 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. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) of the 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) of the RTA.

Has the tenant failed to comply with their obligations?

The tenant claimed he had asked a previous case manager if he could erect two carports and a roof over the deck, to protect and store his belongings that will not fit inside the house or that would cause damage to the inside of the house if he were to store those items inside. He claims the previous case manager gave him verbal permission to do this, on the condition the structures were removed when he left the premises and any damage remediated. Further, he stated that three more case managers have not had an issue with these structures and Pele was the first case manager to raise any concerns about these structures.

The landlord has explained that the tenant did not get this permission in writing and for him to enforce the right to keep the structures in place he must prove that he got the landlord’s written permission before affixing any fixture to the premises, or making any renovation, alteration, or addition of or to the premises. The tenant could not provide any such written permission and is therefore in breach of the terms of his tenancy agreement as well as in breach of section 42(1) of the RTA.

The removal costs have been estimated at no more than $2,500.00 and an alternative work order made that allows the landlord to remove the structures with a cost cap of that amount.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4722490. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
has to implement Order 2 then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work up to	$2,500.00		has to implement Order 2 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 13 February 2024: a. Removal of the small carport to the side of the house and at the top of the driveway (“the structure”); b. Remedied any damage caused from the installation of the structure and/or its removal.
As an alternative to compliance with Order 2, where the tenant has not removed the structure by 13 February 2024 and remedied any damage from its installation and/or removal, the Landlord will take the small carport down and remedy any damage to the premises from the installation/removal of the structure.
If the tenant fails to comply with either Order 1 above, and the Landlord has to implement Order 2 then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work up to $2,500.00. These costs may be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord claims that the tenant, without the written permission of the landlord, built two carports and a roof over the deck that do not meet the current building regulations/industry standards and are creating an unacceptable health and safety risk. 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 landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) of the 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. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) of the 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) of the RTA.

Has the tenant failed to comply with their obligations?

The tenant claimed he had asked a previous case manager if he could erect two carports and a roof over the deck, to protect and store his belongings that will not fit inside the house or that would cause damage to the inside of the house if he were to store those items inside. He claims the previous case manager gave him verbal permission to do this, on the condition the structures were removed when he left the premises and any damage remediated. Further, he stated that three more case managers have not had an issue with these structures and Pele was the first case manager to raise any concerns about these structures.
The landlord has explained that the tenant did not get this permission in writing and for him to enforce the right to keep the structures in place he must prove that he got the landlord’s written permission before affixing any fixture to the premises, or making any renovation, alteration, or addition of or to the premises. The tenant could not provide any such written permission and is therefore in breach of the terms of his tenancy agreement as well as in breach of section 42(1) of the RTA.
The removal costs have been estimated at no more than $2,500.00 and an alternative work order made that allows the landlord to remove the structures with a cost cap of that amount.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4722490 — Smoke alarms at 12 Heyford Close, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4722490 — Smoke alarms at 12 Heyford Close, Mangere, Auckland 2022

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