How much money was awarded in case 5279679?

Y With Either Order 2 (C) Above, The…: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5279679?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5279679?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12458001-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5279679?

Y With Either Order 2 (C) Above, The…: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5279679?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5279679?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12458001-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

10 Yee Place, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5279679 — Smoke alarms

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5279679 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5279679. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
y with either Order 2 (c) above, then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work u	$500.00		y with either Order 2 (c) above, then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work u

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

The tenant must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 12 noon on Wednesday 15 October 2025 a. Complete a “pet approval” form requesting permission for one dog (the black dog currently at the property) to remain as an approved pet b. Remove the yellow-coloured dog and provide confirmation that the dog has been rehomed/removed permanently from the premises. c. Remove the unauthorised wooden structure in the tree at the property.

If the tenant fails to comply with either Order 2 (c) above, then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work up to $500. These costs may be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly.

If the tenant fails to comply with either order 2 or 3 then the applicant may reapply for termination of the tenancy because of the ongoing breaches of the tenancy agreement.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord claims that the tenant has two unauthorised dogs at the premises and has erected a large wooden structure in a tree without approval. The landlord wants the problem fixed.

Under section 42, Residential Tenancies Act 1986 a tenant has specific obligations in relation to the tenancy premises and must obtain permission before erecting additions or structures such as the large tree house.

Under the parties’ tenancy agreement, a tenant can only keep pets at the property with the landlord’s permission and must not erect unauthorised structures.

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.

Has the tenant failed to comply with their obligations?

The tenant has 2 dogs at the property and has not obtained the landlord’s permission for either dog to live there.

The landlord has confirmed that it is willing to permit one dog to remain living at the property. The tenant confirmed that she will rehome the yellow dog and will also complete the required dog consent form so the other dog can obtain approval to stay.

The tenant said this pet approval form had been completed and left in the letterbox, but the applicant confirmed it has not been received. It is also clear from the evidence that two dogs are still at the property as of today.

The tenant will fill in the required pet authorisation form again, with the required information regarding the breed of the dog and its registration, within 21 days seeking consent for the dark coloured dog photographed to remain. She is to ensure the light-coloured dog is rehomed (and provide confirmation of this to the applicant).

The tenant must also remove the structure erected in the tree at the property without approval, within 21 days. While she requested additional time (until the Summer) that is not reasonable given that the first breach notice was issued on 18 February 2025, and has not been complied with. The tenant has agreed that the tree house will be removed so a timeframe for this to occur is considered reasonable given the time that has elapsed since the breach notices were issued.

A money order is imposed in the alternative authorising the landlord to complete the work and charge the tenant up to $500 for costs incurred.

The landlord is not seeking a termination order at this stage but reserves the right to reapply if the order is breached.

The landlord requested name suppression which is approved in anticipation that the outstanding issues can be resolved between the parties.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5279679. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
y with either Order 2 (c) above, then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work u	$500.00		y with either Order 2 (c) above, then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work u

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenant must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 12 noon on Wednesday 15 October 2025 a. Complete a “pet approval” form requesting permission for one dog (the black dog currently at the property) to remain as an approved pet b. Remove the yellow-coloured dog and provide confirmation that the dog has been rehomed/removed permanently from the premises. c. Remove the unauthorised wooden structure in the tree at the property.
If the tenant fails to comply with either Order 2 (c) above, then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work up to $500. These costs may be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly.
If the tenant fails to comply with either order 2 or 3 then the applicant may reapply for termination of the tenancy because of the ongoing breaches of the tenancy agreement.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord claims that the tenant has two unauthorised dogs at the premises and has erected a large wooden structure in a tree without approval. The landlord wants the problem fixed.
Under section 42, Residential Tenancies Act 1986 a tenant has specific obligations in relation to the tenancy premises and must obtain permission before erecting additions or structures such as the large tree house.
Under the parties’ tenancy agreement, a tenant can only keep pets at the property with the landlord’s permission and must not erect unauthorised structures.
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.

Has the tenant failed to comply with their obligations?

The tenant has 2 dogs at the property and has not obtained the landlord’s permission for either dog to live there.
The landlord has confirmed that it is willing to permit one dog to remain living at the property. The tenant confirmed that she will rehome the yellow dog and will also complete the required dog consent form so the other dog can obtain approval to stay.
The tenant said this pet approval form had been completed and left in the letterbox, but the applicant confirmed it has not been received. It is also clear from the evidence that two dogs are still at the property as of today.
The tenant will fill in the required pet authorisation form again, with the required information regarding the breed of the dog and its registration, within 21 days seeking consent for the dark coloured dog photographed to remain. She is to ensure the light-coloured dog is rehomed (and provide confirmation of this to the applicant).
The tenant must also remove the structure erected in the tree at the property without approval, within 21 days. While she requested additional time (until the Summer) that is not reasonable given that the first breach notice was issued on 18 February 2025, and has not been complied with. The tenant has agreed that the tree house will be removed so a timeframe for this to occur is considered reasonable given the time that has elapsed since the breach notices were issued.
A money order is imposed in the alternative authorising the landlord to complete the work and charge the tenant up to $500 for costs incurred.
The landlord is not seeking a termination order at this stage but reserves the right to reapply if the order is breached.
The landlord requested name suppression which is approved in anticipation that the outstanding issues can be resolved between the parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5279679 — Smoke alarms at 10 Yee Place, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5279679 — Smoke alarms at 10 Yee Place, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant failed to comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant failed to comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions