What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5156873 about?

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 5156873?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5156873?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5156873?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12143474-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5156873 about?

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 5156873?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5156873?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Property damage, Exemplary damages, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5156873?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12143474-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 304, 27 Hill Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5156873 — Leaks

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

The tenant must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 9am, Monday 4 August 2025: a. Remove the structure on the balcony.

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.

The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord applied for a work order,

The tenant applied for a work order, compensation, and exemplary damages. Landlord application

The landlord claims that the tenant has built a structure on the balcony of the premises. The landlord wants the problem fixed.

Under section 42, Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a tenant shall not affix any fixture to the premises, or make any renovation, alteration, or addition of or to the premises, except in accordance with the tenancy agreement or with the prior written consent of the landlord.

The tenancy agreement signed by the tenant on 25 January 2016 states at clause 30, “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 permission”.

The Body Corporate Rules dated 16 August 2013 states at clause 3(c), “an owner or occupier of any unit must not enclose or glaze any part of the balcony area maintain any deck, balcony or courtyard forming part of the unit in a neat and tidy condition and not place ay item other than outdoor furniture and plants on the deck or balcony without the written prior approval of the body corporate”.

The landlord has produced photographs of the balcony area which shows that most of the balcony area has been enclosed using a cedar blind and timber. The photographs were taken on 6 November 2024 and 3 February 2025. The landlord inspected the property within a week of the hearing and submits that the structure on the balcony had not changed since the photographs were taken.

The landlord seeks removal of the structure as its presence is a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the tenancy agreement, and the body corporate rules.

The tenant says that he had permission to erect a blind on the balcony. He denies that the balcony is fully enclosed and says that it is not affixed to the building. The tenant says that the blind was erected to prevent pigeons from coming in which was a major problem and a health and safety risk. The tenant confirmed that the structure consists of a cedar blind and timber (including Shadowclad which is a plywood panel), but it is not attached to the balcony and instead is cantilevered.

The tenant submits that he obtained permission from Raquel Lewis, who was the owner’s representative. He says that the permission was given in 2021 during an inspection but was not in writing.

While the tenant said that Raquel Lewis is a tenant liaison for the owner the landlord advised that she is not an employee of the landlord. This therefore raises the issue of whether she was authorised to provide consent, if any was given.

On the evidence I am satisfied that the structure was constructed without written consent and is in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the tenancy agreement. I make a work order requiring the tenant to remove the structure on the balcony.

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.

The tenant has until 9am on Monday 4 August 2025 to comply with the work order. Tenant’s application

The tenant applied for a work order in relation to the oven, leaking kitchen sink, washing machine, and door.

The tenant said that the oven was old and needed replacing because it made humming noises when turned off. He said the temperature control was erratic. He said that he complained to the landlord over two years ago.

In relation to the leaking kitchen sink the tenant said that water flowed into the cabinet which had caused damage. He said that a Plumber had attended on three occasions, but it was not repaired.

For the washing machine the tenant said that it destroys clothes because it makes holes in the clothing, and this has been happening for over two years.

The tenant said that the door had been kicked in three times by other tenants and it leaks because there is no weather seal.

The tenant did not produce any evidence in support of his work order. There were no photographs produced or evidence that the tenant had at any time raised these as maintenance issues.

The landlord produced an inspection report from an annual inspection carried out on 5 March 2025. No maintenance issues were recorded in that report. It is noted that the customer did not allow for photos other than of the smoke alarms.

Given the lack of evidence I am unable to make a work order as it is not clear that any repairs or maintenance is required. That part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed.

The tenant claimed compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises. Given the lack of evidence to support that any maintenance is required the claim for compensation and exemplary damages is also dismissed.

In his application the tenant sought name suppression. Section 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that the Tribunal must order that the party’s names is suppressed where that party is wholly or substantially successful unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest, or justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. As the tenant was neither wholly nor substantially successful in the proceedings, I make no order for suppression.

Order