What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5130148?

The tribunal order states: Lalita Singh must pay Pinnacle Realty Limited As Agent For Sweta & Simram

How much money was awarded in case 5130148?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $603.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5130148?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5130148?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12170348-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5130148?

The tribunal order states: Lalita Singh must pay Pinnacle Realty Limited As Agent For Sweta & Simram

How much money was awarded in case 5130148?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $603.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5130148?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5130148?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12170348-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

715A Massey Road, Mangere, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5130148 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5130148 — net $630.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$603.63	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$630.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$630.63

Lalita Singh must pay Pinnacle Realty Limited As Agent For Sweta & Simram Baljit Sandhu $630.63 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Water rates$603.63 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$630.63 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$630.63

The tenant is to remove all items from the brown paved area of the shared driveway on or before 5.00pm on 27 th July 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for water bills, reimbursement of the filing fee and an order seeking the tenant to remove items from the shared driveway.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount of $603.63 owing as of 25 July 2025.

I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for water bills. Shared driveways:

Shared driveways come with both rights and obligations on residents that share the driveway. Along with share responsibilities for maintenance and repairs, it is essential to keep shared driveways clear of obstructions that might impede access.

The tenancy agreement signed by the tenant expressly states in paragraph 38 that the tenant must ensure that they do not park on the shared driveway and not obstruct parking or the throughfare. Each tenant in the complex was allocated one garage per unit for parking their vehicle.

Each unit has a defined concrete slab directly outside the garage doors, which I consider to be part of the tenant’s property. The driveway is largely concrete with a brown brick paved strip closest to the units and the concrete slab. The issue in dispute is that the tenant has placed a number of heavy and large pots on the concrete slab and the brown paved areas. The consequence of this is it hinders residents of the other units from being able to entry their garages and park outside their house.

The landlord has provided detailed photos of the dispute and letters of complaint by the other residents. The photos show big pots, a shopping trolley, road cones and rubbish bins lined up on the concrete slab and brown paved area clearly to hinder the access to the shared driveway and the ability of neighbouring units to safety take a wide enough swing into their garage from the driveway.

The tenant says that she is intended to do this and does not care that the neighbours are upset.

The tenant has deliberately engaged in this action to enforce her belief that she is entitled to have the sole use of this area, ( concrete slab and brown paved area outside her unit).

I have asked the tenant to simply move her pots and other items onto the concrete slab outside her garage door and off the brown paved part of the driveway. The tenant is not consenting to this. Jurisdiction of Tribunal

S77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, (“RTA”), states that The Tribunal has, subject to the Limitation Act 2010, jurisdiction to determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that— (a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time.

S77 (2) RTA states that without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to do the following things: “to order the landlord or the tenant under any tenancy agreement to which this Act applies to do anything necessary to remedy the breach by that party of any express or implied provision of the tenancy agreement or any provision of this Act, or to do anything that that party is required to do by any such provision” See s 77(2) (l) RTA.

The tenancy agreement states there is one garage per unit for parking. There is no parking allowed on the driveway and tenants must not obstruct any neighbours parking or thoroughfare. The placing of heavy pots and other items is intended to prevent any other person driving onto this area for the purpose of getting into their garage safely and to obstruct part of a shared driveway.

I find that the tenant is in breach of her tenancy agreement.

The tenant is to remove the pot plants, road cones, shopping trundles and any item at all from the brown paved area outside her garage immediately. This is part of the shared driveway and not for her exclusive use. The concrete pad outside the garage door is the tenant’s property.

The landlord can seek remedies from the Tenancy Tribunal if the tenant does not comply with this order to remove everything from the shared driveway.

Because Pinnacle Realty Limited As Agent For Sweta & Simram Baljit Sandhu has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5130148 — net $630.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$603.63	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$630.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$630.63

Order

Lalita Singh must pay Pinnacle Realty Limited As Agent For Sweta & Simram Baljit Sandhu $630.63 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Water rates$603.63 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$630.63 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$630.63
The tenant is to remove all items from the brown paved area of the shared driveway on or before 5.00pm on 27 th July 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for water bills, reimbursement of the filing fee and an order seeking the tenant to remove items from the shared driveway.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount of $603.63 owing as of 25 July 2025.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for water bills. Shared driveways:
Shared driveways come with both rights and obligations on residents that share the driveway. Along with share responsibilities for maintenance and repairs, it is essential to keep shared driveways clear of obstructions that might impede access.
The tenancy agreement signed by the tenant expressly states in paragraph 38 that the tenant must ensure that they do not park on the shared driveway and not obstruct parking or the throughfare. Each tenant in the complex was allocated one garage per unit for parking their vehicle.
Each unit has a defined concrete slab directly outside the garage doors, which I consider to be part of the tenant’s property. The driveway is largely concrete with a brown brick paved strip closest to the units and the concrete slab. The issue in dispute is that the tenant has placed a number of heavy and large pots on the concrete slab and the brown paved areas. The consequence of this is it hinders residents of the other units from being able to entry their garages and park outside their house.
The landlord has provided detailed photos of the dispute and letters of complaint by the other residents. The photos show big pots, a shopping trolley, road cones and rubbish bins lined up on the concrete slab and brown paved area clearly to hinder the access to the shared driveway and the ability of neighbouring units to safety take a wide enough swing into their garage from the driveway.
The tenant says that she is intended to do this and does not care that the neighbours are upset.
The tenant has deliberately engaged in this action to enforce her belief that she is entitled to have the sole use of this area, ( concrete slab and brown paved area outside her unit).
I have asked the tenant to simply move her pots and other items onto the concrete slab outside her garage door and off the brown paved part of the driveway. The tenant is not consenting to this. Jurisdiction of Tribunal
S77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, (“RTA”), states that The Tribunal has, subject to the Limitation Act 2010, jurisdiction to determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that— (a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time.
S77 (2) RTA states that without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to do the following things: “to order the landlord or the tenant under any tenancy agreement to which this Act applies to do anything necessary to remedy the breach by that party of any express or implied provision of the tenancy agreement or any provision of this Act, or to do anything that that party is required to do by any such provision” See s 77(2) (l) RTA.
The tenancy agreement states there is one garage per unit for parking. There is no parking allowed on the driveway and tenants must not obstruct any neighbours parking or thoroughfare. The placing of heavy pots and other items is intended to prevent any other person driving onto this area for the purpose of getting into their garage safely and to obstruct part of a shared driveway.
I find that the tenant is in breach of her tenancy agreement.
The tenant is to remove the pot plants, road cones, shopping trundles and any item at all from the brown paved area outside her garage immediately. This is part of the shared driveway and not for her exclusive use. The concrete pad outside the garage door is the tenant’s property.
The landlord can seek remedies from the Tenancy Tribunal if the tenant does not comply with this order to remove everything from the shared driveway.
Because Pinnacle Realty Limited As Agent For Sweta & Simram Baljit Sandhu has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5130148 — Tenancy dispute at 715A Massey Road, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5130148 — Tenancy dispute at 715A Massey Road, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions