Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5346884 — Smoke alarms at 4A Ivon Road, Otara, Auckland 2023
Decided 4 March 2026 · Published 4 March 2026 · Application 5346884
Mixed / unclear
- Smoke alarms
Order
- The tenant must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by Friday 13 March 2026: a. The shipping container currently stored on the property must be removed.
- As an alternative to compliance with Order 1, the tenant must pay the landlord $1,393.88, immediately.
- If the tenant fails to comply with either Order 1 or 2 above, then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work up to $1,393.88. These costs may be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly.
Reasons
- Ms Smith, representing the landlord, attended the teleconference hearing. The phone numbers for the tenant were called multiple times, the last three digits being 460 and 556 respectively but there was no response. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in his absence.
- There were three hearings about this matter. The tenant only attended the second hearing on 14 January 2026. The first hearing on 19 November 2025 was adjourned for the landlord to obtain a quote about any removal costs. The second hearing involved both parties and was adjourned for the landlord to obtain written evidence from the Auckland Council as to: a. Whether the Council considers the tenant has breached any legal obligation having the container on the property; and b. Whether the Council requires the container to be removed.
- The landlord claims that the tenant has kept a shipping container on the property without the landlord’s consent. Whilst the container has been on the property for about 10 years, the landlord discovered in 2025 that the Auckland Council by-laws did not permit containers to be kept on residential premises for more than one month in a 12-month period.
- The landlord issued the tenant with a 14-day notice on 17 July 2025 to remove the container by 11 August 2025. The landlord provided a photograph taken on 13 August 2025 showing the container was still on the tenancy property.
- The tenant disputes the landlord’s work order claim and, at the second hearing, said he only uses the container for storage and did not believe the container was causing any harm. He believed the landlord had not shown that him having the container at the property was unlawful.
- As such, the hearing was adjourned for the landlord to obtain further evidence from the Auckland Council, as outlined above.
- The landlord provided an Abatement Notice from the Auckland Council dated 4 February 2026, which was served on the tenant directly, directing him to remove the container from the property by 2 March 2026. The Abatement Notice set out in detail that, in the tenant storing the container at the property as he had, he was in breach of the Auckland Council by-laws as he was not permitted to have a container on a residential property for more than one month in a 12-month period, without a resource consent. The Abatement Notice confirmed that there was no such resource consent in place for the tenant to have the container.
- The landlord provided a further photograph taken on the same day as the hearing, 4 March 2026, which showed the container still on the property. As such, the tenant clearly has not complied with the Auckland Council Abatement Notice deadline of 2 March 2026 for removal of the container.
- The landlord wants the problem fixed.
- Under section 40(1)(a)-(e), Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), a tenant has specific obligations in relation to the tenancy premises.
- Pursuant to section 40(2) RTA, the tenant shall not use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.
- Section 42 RTA provides that the tenant shall not affix any fixture to the premises or make any addition to the premises, except in accordance with the tenancy agreement or with the prior written consent of the landlord. The landlord said they did not consent to the tenant having the container at the property.
- Further, the tenancy agreement provides that the tenant must comply with local by-laws and obtain the landlord’s consent for any fixtures or structures on the property.
- 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 Abatement Notice dated 4 February 2026 from the Auckland Council to the tenant clearly sets out that, in having the container at the property for more than one month in a 12-month period, without any resource consent, which the Council confirmed was not in place, the tenant is in breach of the local by-laws. The Abatement Notice directed the tenant to remove the container by 2 March 2026. The landlord provided a photograph taken on 4 March 2026 showing the container is still at the property. Therefore, the tenant has not complied with the Abatement Notice by the compliance date indicated in the Notice.
- There was no evidence provided by the tenant about having applied for any resource consent. The tenant was aware of this process from discussions about this at the second hearing in January 2026. Given this lack of evidence from the tenant about any resource consent application, I find it likely the tenant remains in breach of the local by-laws by still having the container at the property as at the date of hearing, 4 March 2026.
- The landlord provided quote evidence of the cost to remove the container, being $1,026.38, and the cost of the first month of storing the container in a dry yard, which is $367.50, for a total of $1,393.88. I accept that the container will need to be removed straight to a storage facility, should the tenant not remove the container himself.
- The tenant must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by Friday 13 March 2026: a. The shipping container currently stored on the property must be removed.
- As an alternative to compliance with the order to remove the shipping container by Friday 13 March 2026, the tenant must pay the landlord $1,393.88, immediately.
- If the tenant fails to comply with removing the shipping container by Friday 13 March 2026 or fails to pay the landlord $1,393.88 as an alternative to compliance, then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work up to $1,393.88. These costs may be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly. Suppression
- At the second hearing on 14 January 2026, the tenant requested name suppression. The tenant has not been successful in the claim, nor did he provide any evidence as to his interests outweighing the public interest in publishing his name. As such, I decline to grant the tenant name suppression. See sections 95A(1) and 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.