What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4996789?

The tribunal order states: Rita Andrea Marsters must pay Kainga Ora - Homes and Communities $27.00

How much money was awarded in case 4996789?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4996789?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4996789?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11210350-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4996789?

The tribunal order states: Rita Andrea Marsters must pay Kainga Ora - Homes and Communities $27.00

How much money was awarded in case 4996789?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4996789?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4996789?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11210350-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

36 Portage Road, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4996789 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4996789 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Order

Rita Andrea Marsters must pay Kainga Ora - Homes and Communities $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The tenant must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 17 February 2025: a. Removal of two portable cabins from the property.
As an alternative to compliance with Order 2, the tenant must pay the landlord $2,000.00 immediately.
If the tenant fails to comply with either Order 2 or 3 above, then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work up to $2,000.00. These costs may be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord claims that the tenant has allowed two portable cabins to be placed on the property. The landlord claims this is a breach of clause 30 of the tenancy agreement and section 42(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The landlord wants the problem fixed and seeks a work order requiring the tenant to remove the cabins.
The tenant has filed a cross-application opposing the landlord’s request for a work order. Background
The tenancy began on 24 June 2019.
The property is a three bedroomed home. The tenant lives in the property with her 4 children. The tenant has another child and shares custody with her ex- partner. The tenant’s ex-partner is the primary carer of this child.
Sometime in May 2024, the tenant’s ex-partner lost their tenancy when their landlord decided to complete extensive renovations on the property. The tenant’s ex-partner was unable to find a new tenancy. Concerned that her ex-partner and daughter had nowhere to live, the tenant organised for two cabins to be placed on the property. These cabins house the tenant’s ex-partner, their child and the tenant’s ex-partner’s parents.
The tenant claims this is not the first time she has organised for cabins to be placed on the property to help family. The tenant claims in 2020/2021 she did the same thing to assist her mother, sister and 4 children. The tenant claims her property manager at the time knew about the arrangement and did not take any issue with the presence of the cabins.
The tenant submits that the cabins are safe and produced electrical warrants of fitness for them.
The landlord claims that they did not give consent for the tenant to place two cabins on the property and that in doing so, the tenant is in breach of clause 30 of the tenancy agreement and section 42(1) RTA. The landlord claims there is a concern around over-crowding at the property. The property is a three bedroomed home and should only be used to occupy a maximum of five people. The landlord also has concerns around safety, even though the cabins have electrical warrants of fitness.
The tenant produced text communication with their new property manager. From these text messages, it appears that the concern communicated to the tenant was that the people living in the cabins are not part of the tenant’s household, as assessed by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD).
The tenant states that they have tried to include their ex-partner, their child and his parents as part of their household, but have encountered difficulties doing this. The tenant is not in a relationship with her ex-partner but wants to live with him in order to co-parent their children. The tenant states that MSD will not allow her and her ex-partner to be considered as part of one household unit unless they are in a relationship, which the tenant says they are not.
The landlord states that the tenant’s ex-partner, their child and his parents are on the waiting list for social housing. Is the tenant in breach of the tenancy agreement or section 42(1) RTA?
Clause 30 of the tenancy agreement states: Building other structures or making alterations at the premises If you want to build structures, such as sheds, sleepouts, or garages on the premises, or make any alterations to it, you must first get our written consent.
I consider that a portable cabin falls within the definition of “structures” provided in clause 30. Like a sleepout, a cabin is a temporary, portable building that is often used to provide an additional room for someone to live or sleep in.
I do not consider that clause 30 is inconsistent with any other provisions of the RTA. It mirrors section 42A RTA. Therefore, it is a valid and enforceable clause of the tenancy agreement and section 11 RTA does not apply to exclude it.
The tenant accepts that they did not obtain the written consent of the landlord before placing the two cabins on the property. Therefore, I find that the tenant is in breach of clause 30 of the tenancy agreement by having two portable cabins on the property.
Section 42(1) RTA states: 42Tenant’s fixtures, etc (1) 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 (see section 42A).
The cabins are portable and sit on top of bricks however, they are connected to the tenancy address by wires. Therefore, I consider that the cabins most likely constitute a “fixture” under section 42(1) RTA. I also consider that the cabins are an “addition” of the premises, as they provide extra rooms that the tenancy address does not have.
The tenancy agreement does not permit the tenant to affix any fixture to the premises, or make any renovation, alteration, or addition to the premises. The tenant accepts that they did not have the prior written consent of the landlord before they placed two cabins on the property. Therefore, I find that the tenant is also in breach of section 42(1) RTA by placing two cabins on the property.

Should a work order be made?

A tenant has specific obligations in relation to the tenancy premises under the tenancy agreement and provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
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.
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) 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. 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I have found that the tenant has breached clause 30 of the tenancy agreement and section 42(1) RTA by placing two cabins on the property without the prior written consent of the landlord. Therefore, I have made a work order requiring the tenant to remove the cabins by 17 February 2025 or pay the landlord $2,000.00 immediately. If the tenant does not comply with either of these, the landlord may remove the cabins and charge the tenant the cost of doing so up to a maximum of $2,000.00. Neither party were able to give submissions about the likely cost of removing the cabins however, I consider $2,000.00 to be a reasonable amount considering the size of the cabins, the way in which they are affixed to the tenancy address and the fact that there are two.
I have allowed the tenant until 17 February 2025 to remove the cabins, because there is a child residing in one of the cabins and no alternative accommodation is readily available. It is almost Christmas and it will be difficult for the people residing in the cabins to find a new tenancy during the Christmas and New Year period when a lot of businesses close and landlords take a break over the holiday season. The landlord was not opposed to allowing the tenant a reasonable amount of time to remove the cabins. Suppression
The tenant requested suppression in their cross-application however, as they have not been wholly or substantially successful in their claim, I am not required to grant suppression. See section 95A(1) RTA.
I have a residual discretion to grant the tenant name suppression under section 95A(3) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
The tenant did not advance their application for name suppression at the hearing. I was not referred to any special circumstances why name suppression should be granted and none are apparent from the facts of this case.
I have considered the interests of the parties and the public interest. I do not consider that this is an appropriate case to grant name suppression. Filing fee
Because Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4996789 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Order

Rita Andrea Marsters must pay Kainga Ora - Homes and Communities $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The tenant must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 17 February 2025: a. Removal of two portable cabins from the property.
As an alternative to compliance with Order 2, the tenant must pay the landlord $2,000.00 immediately.
If the tenant fails to comply with either Order 2 or 3 above, then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work up to $2,000.00. These costs may be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord claims that the tenant has allowed two portable cabins to be placed on the property. The landlord claims this is a breach of clause 30 of the tenancy agreement and section 42(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The landlord wants the problem fixed and seeks a work order requiring the tenant to remove the cabins.
The tenant has filed a cross-application opposing the landlord’s request for a work order. Background
The tenancy began on 24 June 2019.
The property is a three bedroomed home. The tenant lives in the property with her 4 children. The tenant has another child and shares custody with her ex- partner. The tenant’s ex-partner is the primary carer of this child.
Sometime in May 2024, the tenant’s ex-partner lost their tenancy when their landlord decided to complete extensive renovations on the property. The tenant’s ex-partner was unable to find a new tenancy. Concerned that her ex-partner and daughter had nowhere to live, the tenant organised for two cabins to be placed on the property. These cabins house the tenant’s ex-partner, their child and the tenant’s ex-partner’s parents.
The tenant claims this is not the first time she has organised for cabins to be placed on the property to help family. The tenant claims in 2020/2021 she did the same thing to assist her mother, sister and 4 children. The tenant claims her property manager at the time knew about the arrangement and did not take any issue with the presence of the cabins.
The tenant submits that the cabins are safe and produced electrical warrants of fitness for them.
The landlord claims that they did not give consent for the tenant to place two cabins on the property and that in doing so, the tenant is in breach of clause 30 of the tenancy agreement and section 42(1) RTA. The landlord claims there is a concern around over-crowding at the property. The property is a three bedroomed home and should only be used to occupy a maximum of five people. The landlord also has concerns around safety, even though the cabins have electrical warrants of fitness.
The tenant produced text communication with their new property manager. From these text messages, it appears that the concern communicated to the tenant was that the people living in the cabins are not part of the tenant’s household, as assessed by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD).
The tenant states that they have tried to include their ex-partner, their child and his parents as part of their household, but have encountered difficulties doing this. The tenant is not in a relationship with her ex-partner but wants to live with him in order to co-parent their children. The tenant states that MSD will not allow her and her ex-partner to be considered as part of one household unit unless they are in a relationship, which the tenant says they are not.
The landlord states that the tenant’s ex-partner, their child and his parents are on the waiting list for social housing. Is the tenant in breach of the tenancy agreement or section 42(1) RTA?
Clause 30 of the tenancy agreement states: Building other structures or making alterations at the premises If you want to build structures, such as sheds, sleepouts, or garages on the premises, or make any alterations to it, you must first get our written consent.
I consider that a portable cabin falls within the definition of “structures” provided in clause 30. Like a sleepout, a cabin is a temporary, portable building that is often used to provide an additional room for someone to live or sleep in.
I do not consider that clause 30 is inconsistent with any other provisions of the RTA. It mirrors section 42A RTA. Therefore, it is a valid and enforceable clause of the tenancy agreement and section 11 RTA does not apply to exclude it.
The tenant accepts that they did not obtain the written consent of the landlord before placing the two cabins on the property. Therefore, I find that the tenant is in breach of clause 30 of the tenancy agreement by having two portable cabins on the property.
Section 42(1) RTA states: 42Tenant’s fixtures, etc (1) 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 (see section 42A).
The cabins are portable and sit on top of bricks however, they are connected to the tenancy address by wires. Therefore, I consider that the cabins most likely constitute a “fixture” under section 42(1) RTA. I also consider that the cabins are an “addition” of the premises, as they provide extra rooms that the tenancy address does not have.
The tenancy agreement does not permit the tenant to affix any fixture to the premises, or make any renovation, alteration, or addition to the premises. The tenant accepts that they did not have the prior written consent of the landlord before they placed two cabins on the property. Therefore, I find that the tenant is also in breach of section 42(1) RTA by placing two cabins on the property.

Should a work order be made?

A tenant has specific obligations in relation to the tenancy premises under the tenancy agreement and provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
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.
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) 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. 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I have found that the tenant has breached clause 30 of the tenancy agreement and section 42(1) RTA by placing two cabins on the property without the prior written consent of the landlord. Therefore, I have made a work order requiring the tenant to remove the cabins by 17 February 2025 or pay the landlord $2,000.00 immediately. If the tenant does not comply with either of these, the landlord may remove the cabins and charge the tenant the cost of doing so up to a maximum of $2,000.00. Neither party were able to give submissions about the likely cost of removing the cabins however, I consider $2,000.00 to be a reasonable amount considering the size of the cabins, the way in which they are affixed to the tenancy address and the fact that there are two.
I have allowed the tenant until 17 February 2025 to remove the cabins, because there is a child residing in one of the cabins and no alternative accommodation is readily available. It is almost Christmas and it will be difficult for the people residing in the cabins to find a new tenancy during the Christmas and New Year period when a lot of businesses close and landlords take a break over the holiday season. The landlord was not opposed to allowing the tenant a reasonable amount of time to remove the cabins. Suppression
The tenant requested suppression in their cross-application however, as they have not been wholly or substantially successful in their claim, I am not required to grant suppression. See section 95A(1) RTA.
I have a residual discretion to grant the tenant name suppression under section 95A(3) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
The tenant did not advance their application for name suppression at the hearing. I was not referred to any special circumstances why name suppression should be granted and none are apparent from the facts of this case.
I have considered the interests of the parties and the public interest. I do not consider that this is an appropriate case to grant name suppression. Filing fee
Because Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4996789 — Tenancy dispute at 36 Portage Road, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4996789 — Tenancy dispute at 36 Portage Road, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a work order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a work order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions