What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5025160 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5025160?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5025160?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5025160?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11089472-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5025160 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5025160?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5025160?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5025160?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11089472-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5025160 — Healthy homes

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenant must remove unlicensed vehicles, vehicles being used for spare parts, trailers, recyclable materials, and inorganic waste (including old machinery, equipment and appliances) from the external areas of the premises and deconstruct and remove all temporary structures the tenant has made, so that the premises are kept reasonably tidy. (See guidance at paragraphs 23-29 below)
The tenant must comply with this order by 5pm on Friday 10 January 2025. If this order is not complied with, or the landlord considers it has not been complied with by that time, the landlord may request a further hearing to consider termination of the tenancy.

Reasons

Both parties attended the telephone/video hearings on 17 October 2024 and 14 November 2024. The tenant was represented at the second hearing.
The tenant has lived at the premises since 25 May 2013. On 4 October 2024 the landlord applied for a conditional termination order based on the tenant’s breach of section 40(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
At the hearing, the tenant voiced concerns about the veracity of the information provided in support of the application by the landlord, and alleged failures by the landlord to engage. There was also a suggestion that the landlord had ulterior motives for the application, for example, so that maintenance and healthy homes compliance work could be organised without the tenant being in occupation.
I have listened carefully to the tenant, but I do not propose to respond to everything he told me. I acknowledge the tenant’s uncertainty about what needs to happen to make the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy, how this is to be funded, what the timeframe is for compliance, and his view that the premises are sufficiently tidy already. Background
The timeline provided by the landlord indicates that the issue with hoarding at the premises goes back to late November 2021. According to the landlord, there have been numerous meetings over several years with the tenant, joined by representatives of a local community trust, as part of unsuccessful attempts to resolve the issue.
The Tribunal was told that the District Council issued a cleansing order in 2017, although this has not been provided. The Tribunal has received photographs taken by the landlord on 3 October 2023, 15 August 2024, and most recently on 12 November 2024.
I take the tenant’s representative’s point that the photographs are of different areas of the yard around the property (the section is about 1,000m²) and therefore it is difficult to compare the photographs to see how the outside condition has changed. My impression, however, is that the condition has improved slightly over this period.
The landlord’s written submissions described the condition of the premises as follows: [The tenant] is conducting his lawn mowing and firewood business from his property, the grounds are cluttered in old vehicles, trailers, lawn mowers, old appliances, recyclables and firewood. [The tenant] has also constructed unauthorised tenant structures around the property which appear to be structurally unsound. [The tenant] parks his vehicles (not always road compliant) along the street and berm outside his address and neighbouring properties. Possessions also encroach onto the berm...History of hoarding at the property goes back to 30 August 2017 when [the District Council] issued a cleansing order.
The landlord’s submissions also addressed the reasons why a conditional termination order was sought: Risks: Due to the massive accumulation of inorganic material we are unable to perform maintenance at the property and there are fire risks to our property, risks to life of tenant and neighbours. Access to house would be very difficult and a hazard for the fire department to fight any fire and the tenant might not be able to get out if there was a fire. There is a risk of spread of fire as hoarding of materials extends to all boundaries. There is also a risk of vermin living in recyclable materials. Risks also of trip hazard as access to house is blocked by recyclable materials from vehicles to metal, plastic containers and wood.
As noted above, the tenant has been assisted by a community trust. A Whanau Ora plan was signed on 22 July 2024. The goals identified included support for the tenant with “...funding to dump his rubbish at the local landfill, contributing to his goal of advancing access to health services and resources”. The first step of this goal required the tenant to “...continue with his clean up efforts to improve living conditions and to avoid being evicted from [his] home”.
A notice to remedy was issued by the landlord on 30 July 2024. The letter required the tenant to (adopting the letter verbatim): • Remove all vehicle wrecks, includes trailers from the property, including any vehicles that are under repair, being wrecked for spare parts and are not road compliant, i.e., vehicles that have no current registration or warrant. • Remove and dispose of any hoarding possessions such as old machinery/equipment, containers, bottles, and recycling materials such as metals, timber and rubbish. • Ensure the house, grounds, shed, and carport are clean and tidy. • Remove any tenant structures that are not authorised or permitted. Relevant Law
Section 40(1)(c) of the Act requires the tenant to keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy during the tenancy.
Pursuant to section 40(1)(e) of the Act, on termination of the tenancy, the tenant is required to remove all their goods from the premises, leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
Although the requirement that premises be kept reasonably tidy means this must be assessed objectively, the issue may be approached slightly differently at different times. During the tenancy, tenants should probably be given greater freedom to live in and use the premises as they wish, consistent with their right to quiet enjoyment.
Following termination of the tenancy, while tenants still have rights (for example, not to be evicted except in accordance with the Act) the Tribunal may take a more conservative approach when considering whether the objective standard is met. That is because, at that stage, the tenant also has an obligation to remove their goods and rubbish and quit the premises. The legal standard remains the same, but the Tribunal strives to do substantial justice between the parties in the circumstances.
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, in the case of a breach capable of remedy, notice has been given requiring the breach to be remedied, the default has not been remedied, and the breach: “...is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy” (section 56 of the Act). Analysis
The starting point is that the tenant is entitled to occupy the premises for residential purposes. Doing so may include a wide range of domestic and recreational activities, some of which could result in a level of untidiness. It is not outside such reasonable residential use to have, for example, an outdoor workshop, to use the garage to maintain vehicles, or to store DIY products. As suggested above, the Tribunal may adopt a more liberal approach during a continuing tenancy when assessing whether premises have been kept reasonably tidy.
Although the tenant denied using the premises to run a scrap-metal business, he acknowledged that he fixes up lawn mowers in his spare time to supplement his income. He confirmed that some of the belongings were there to sell, and he collects firewood for heating for the following year. The tenant noted that friends drop off wooden pallets, and he cuts these up for firewood to save money.
The tenant denied that there is a fire risk or a pest problem. At the hearing on 17 October 2024, in contrast, the landlord’s representative said she had seen rats at the premises in August 2024, when she visited to take photographs.
The tenant also denied that there were access issues for maintenance. He described how access was provided in April 2024 for healthy homes compliance, and the landlord confirmed that the premises meet the healthy homes standards.
The photographs from the most recent inspection show tyres, wood and metal resting against the fence-line; temporary wooden structures built against the house and the fence; piles of wood stacked underneath a makeshift shelter or lean-to; a truck surrounded by tyres, metal objects and wood, protected by a large canvas cover; wooden planks resting against the side of the house; a fence at the front of the property made of corrugated iron sheeting; and various vehicles and trailers parked on the grounds, on the driveway and along the berm.
After making allowance for the notion that tenants are entitled to use premises liberally for a broad range of residential and domestic activities, I am still concerned that the property is not reasonably tidy. I agree with the landlord’s concerns about fire, pest, and access risks.
The tenancy agreement expressly provides that the tenant required permission to “...build structures, such as sheds, sleepouts, or garages on the premises, or make any alterations”. This is consistent with and reflects section 42(1) of the Act. In my view, the various fences and wooden structures that can be seen in the photographs have been constructed in breach of the tenancy agreement. They do not look very stable or enduring. They need to be deconstructed and removed.
It is unclear why there are so many vehicles on the premises. The tenant indicated that some of them are used for storage of personal belongings. Again, I am not satisfied that the premises are reasonably tidy if outdoor areas are being used to store multiple vehicles that are not licensed, unable to be driven legally on the road, or are being used for parts.
In my view, any “wrecked”, defunct, or unlicensed vehicles on the premises should be removed. If the problem is with unlicensed vehicles parked on the road, that may be an issue the District Council will need to resolve. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to residential premises and does not extend beyond the boundaries of the land included in the tenancy. The berm and the road are likely owned by the Council.
I consider that firewood needs to be removed from the premises if there is nowhere for it to be safely stored. The entrance porch should be clear but is partly obstructed by firewood and other items. It is not unreasonable for the tenant to have firewood for use during the winter, if stored appropriately and safely. Currently there is a small green shed which the tenant says is too small even for a lawn mower. I would encourage the landlord to give thought to providing appropriate outside storage at the premises. The tenant mentioned a request for a storage container.
It is not appropriate for wood and other inorganic objects to be stored next to a wooden fence, near overhanding trees or vegetation, or against the house. I view this as a fire hazard, including for neighbouring properties.
The driveway should be clear of objects so that emergency services and other residential and maintenance services can gain access.
The carport is shown full of tyres and inorganic waste (including, prominently, an orange traffic cone) in one of the recent photographs. In my view, the car port should be cleared so it can be used for car parking.
If these matters are addressed, the premises may then be considered reasonably tidy, however, they are only indicative and based on the available photographs. Ultimately, the Tribunal will need to determine, at a further hearing, whether the premises have been returned to a reasonably tidy standard as required. If it has not, the tenancy may be terminated if it would be inequitable not to do so.
The Tribunal suggests that a senior housing manager or maintenance partner is available on site to help identify what needs to be removed, disposed of or sold. This addresses the tenant’s concern about not being consulted. The tenant should ideally have an opportunity for a support person to be present, perhaps someone from the community trust. The parties will need to cooperate to ensure compliance with the Tribunal’s order.
I acknowledge that funding the cost of disposal may be problematic. On the other hand, the tenant still has storage space provided by the District Council (which he is subletting) and the situation has been allowed to develop over a long time. The Tribunal cannot simply ignore the breach. It is possible the community trust can provide some assistance, for example, in the form of helping hands or provision of a skip bin. To the extent that the landlord funds some of the cost in the first instance, an application could be brought for rubbish removal costs.
The tenant must comply with this order by Friday 10 January 2024 (i.e., within 8 weeks). This makes allowance for holiday closures between 23 December 2024 and 3 January 2025. The landlord requested that the tenant tidy the premises in 10 working days, but this seems unrealistic. Name Suppression
The tenant did not request name suppression, but I have decided to grant this on my own initiative. The tenant’s mental health is a relevant factor in this case. I consider a suppression order is appropriate to protect the tenant’s privacy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5025160 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5025160 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions