What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356372 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant is ordered to immediately comply with the tenancy agreement

How much money was awarded in case 5356372?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356372?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356372?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13063932-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356372 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant is ordered to immediately comply with the tenancy agreement

How much money was awarded in case 5356372?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356372?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356372?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13063932-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

19 Farrelly Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5356372 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenant is ordered to immediately comply with the tenancy agreement provision setting out maximum occupancy at the property, unless agreed otherwise by the landlord.
The landlord’s claim for a work order to remove the tenant’s cabin from the property is dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Gray, representing the landlord, and Ms Howard, the tenant, both attended the hearing by video conference and phone conference respectively.
The landlord has applied for a work order for the tenant to remedy a breach of the tenancy agreement.
The tenant has cross-applied for an order that the cabin on the property can stay on the property.
The issue between the parties is a cabin on Ms Howard’s tenancy property.
The applications were heard in two hearings on 26 November 2025 and on 3 February 2025. The first hearing was adjourned for the parties to provide further evidence.
The landlord said they agreed for the tenant to have a cabin on her property for 6 months only, pursuant to a letter to the tenant dated 17 January 2025. Part of the letter included a clause that the tenant acknowledged that consent for the dwelling to be placed at her home was for 6 months only from the date of the letter, which was then signed by the tenant on 17 January 2025. The tenant said it was not explained to her that it was only for 6 months, and then later said her tenancy manager said she could ask for an extension. The landlord said it was explained to the tenant at the time of signing that the landlord’s consent for the cabin to be on the property was only for 6 months, for the tenant’s nephew to stay in on a short-term basis whilst he found alternative accommodation.
The landlord initially raised an issue about electrical work at the cabin, which was resolved at the second hearing on 3 February 2026 when the landlord confirmed they had been to the cabin to check the electrical work completed by a registered electrician on 29 October 2025, and the electrical work was fine and complied.
The tenant provided significant medical evidence about her nephew’s medical issues. These letters indicated support from the nephew’s medical professionals for him to remain in a stable living environment close to the support of his family.
The tenant said her nephew has to stay in the cabin and not the main house, because the main house only has 2 bedrooms and the tenant lives there with her 3-year-old daughter. The tenant said it would not be appropriate for her nephew to live in the main house as he is around during the day, and he smokes cigarettes.
The landlord said they sent the tenant a 14-day notice dated 12 August 2025 that she remove the cabin from the property, with which the tenant did not comply or remedy. At a meeting on 21 August 2025 with the tenant, the landlord said the tenant continued to refuse to remove the cabin from the property. The landlord said the tenant is in breach of the tenancy agreement, that the property is now overcrowded, and clarified they only consented to a short term stay for the cabin at the property, given the nephew’s then urgent circumstances.
The landlord explained that the tenant’s nephew is not named on the tenancy agreement as a formal tenant, nor is he named as an occupier at the property. However, the landlord confirmed that Ms Howard had informed them the nephew was living in the cabin.
The tenant said she was told by her housing manager that she could ask for an extension for the cabin to remain, which was generally allowed. She wants the cabin to remain on the property, so her nephew is not made homeless and has family support in dealing with his medical issues.
The landlord was clear they would not consent to any extension of permission for the cabin to remain on Ms Howard’s tenancy property.
The landlord said the tenant could apply for a transfer to a bigger house, if she wished to remain living with her nephew. The tenant said there was no point in her doing this when the current situation worked for the tenant and her nephew.
The landlord seeks a work order pursuant to section 78(1)e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The landlord confirmed there would be no cost involved in removing the cabin, if they were required to do so.
In considering whether a work order is to be made against the tenant, the Tribunal must first consider whether the tenant has breached either the tenancy agreement, the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), or other relevant statutes or provisions relating to buildings, for example.
Section 40(3) of the RTA provides that, where the tenancy agreement specifies a maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant shall ensure that no more than that number ordinarily reside in the premises at any time during the tenancy.
Here, the landlord said the tenant has breached the tenancy agreement by exceeding the maximum occupancy number set out in the tenancy agreement. This is the breach for which the landlord seeks a work order. The landlord did not point to a specific provision in the RTA that they said the tenant breached, nor did they allege the tenant was breaching any general building or planning laws by having the cabin on the property. As the landlord has consented to the tenant having the cabin on the property at least for 6 months, it would be difficult for them to argue that the cabin being on the property breached any general building or planning laws in any event.
The tenant has the cabin on the property, which, in theory, could be used for other activities by the tenant, such as storage or hobby activities, as opposed to having somebody stay in the cabin. In my view, the main issue, which the landlord confirmed is the breach they allege by the tenant, is having the tenant comply with the provision of the tenancy agreement that provides for the maximum occupancy of the property.
Based on the evidence, I find the landlord has not demonstrated the requirement for the removal of the cabin, as the presence of the cabin itself does not form part of the tenant’s breach, but rather the issue is one of the tenant breaching the maximum occupancy provision in the tenancy agreement.
I note from clause 12 of the tenancy agreement that the maximum occupancy of the property is 1 person. The date of the tenancy agreement may pre-date the arrival of the tenant’s now 3-year-old daughter. It appears the landlord has consented in practice to the tenant’s young daughter living at the property, though not formally yet. The parties can choose whether to vary the maximum occupancy provision in the tenancy agreement to reflect the tenant’s daughter living with the tenant, should they choose to do so.
As such, the tenant is ordered to immediately comply with the tenancy agreement provision setting out maximum occupancy at the property, unless agreed otherwise by the landlord.
Based on the evidence provided, as the landlord did not point to or provide sufficient evidence of the tenant breaching any legal obligation with having the cabin on site, the landlord’s claim for a work order to remove the tenant’s cabin from the property is dismissed.

Order

The tenant is ordered to immediately comply with the tenancy agreement provision setting out maximum occupancy at the property, unless agreed otherwise by the landlord.
The landlord’s claim for a work order to remove the tenant’s cabin from the property is dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Gray, representing the landlord, and Ms Howard, the tenant, both attended the hearing by video conference and phone conference respectively.
The landlord has applied for a work order for the tenant to remedy a breach of the tenancy agreement.
The tenant has cross-applied for an order that the cabin on the property can stay on the property.
The issue between the parties is a cabin on Ms Howard’s tenancy property.
The applications were heard in two hearings on 26 November 2025 and on 3 February 2025. The first hearing was adjourned for the parties to provide further evidence.
The landlord said they agreed for the tenant to have a cabin on her property for 6 months only, pursuant to a letter to the tenant dated 17 January 2025. Part of the letter included a clause that the tenant acknowledged that consent for the dwelling to be placed at her home was for 6 months only from the date of the letter, which was then signed by the tenant on 17 January 2025. The tenant said it was not explained to her that it was only for 6 months, and then later said her tenancy manager said she could ask for an extension. The landlord said it was explained to the tenant at the time of signing that the landlord’s consent for the cabin to be on the property was only for 6 months, for the tenant’s nephew to stay in on a short-term basis whilst he found alternative accommodation.
The landlord initially raised an issue about electrical work at the cabin, which was resolved at the second hearing on 3 February 2026 when the landlord confirmed they had been to the cabin to check the electrical work completed by a registered electrician on 29 October 2025, and the electrical work was fine and complied.
The tenant provided significant medical evidence about her nephew’s medical issues. These letters indicated support from the nephew’s medical professionals for him to remain in a stable living environment close to the support of his family.
The tenant said her nephew has to stay in the cabin and not the main house, because the main house only has 2 bedrooms and the tenant lives there with her 3-year-old daughter. The tenant said it would not be appropriate for her nephew to live in the main house as he is around during the day, and he smokes cigarettes.
The landlord said they sent the tenant a 14-day notice dated 12 August 2025 that she remove the cabin from the property, with which the tenant did not comply or remedy. At a meeting on 21 August 2025 with the tenant, the landlord said the tenant continued to refuse to remove the cabin from the property. The landlord said the tenant is in breach of the tenancy agreement, that the property is now overcrowded, and clarified they only consented to a short term stay for the cabin at the property, given the nephew’s then urgent circumstances.
The landlord explained that the tenant’s nephew is not named on the tenancy agreement as a formal tenant, nor is he named as an occupier at the property. However, the landlord confirmed that Ms Howard had informed them the nephew was living in the cabin.
The tenant said she was told by her housing manager that she could ask for an extension for the cabin to remain, which was generally allowed. She wants the cabin to remain on the property, so her nephew is not made homeless and has family support in dealing with his medical issues.
The landlord was clear they would not consent to any extension of permission for the cabin to remain on Ms Howard’s tenancy property.
The landlord said the tenant could apply for a transfer to a bigger house, if she wished to remain living with her nephew. The tenant said there was no point in her doing this when the current situation worked for the tenant and her nephew.
The landlord seeks a work order pursuant to section 78(1)e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The landlord confirmed there would be no cost involved in removing the cabin, if they were required to do so.
In considering whether a work order is to be made against the tenant, the Tribunal must first consider whether the tenant has breached either the tenancy agreement, the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), or other relevant statutes or provisions relating to buildings, for example.
Section 40(3) of the RTA provides that, where the tenancy agreement specifies a maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant shall ensure that no more than that number ordinarily reside in the premises at any time during the tenancy.
Here, the landlord said the tenant has breached the tenancy agreement by exceeding the maximum occupancy number set out in the tenancy agreement. This is the breach for which the landlord seeks a work order. The landlord did not point to a specific provision in the RTA that they said the tenant breached, nor did they allege the tenant was breaching any general building or planning laws by having the cabin on the property. As the landlord has consented to the tenant having the cabin on the property at least for 6 months, it would be difficult for them to argue that the cabin being on the property breached any general building or planning laws in any event.
The tenant has the cabin on the property, which, in theory, could be used for other activities by the tenant, such as storage or hobby activities, as opposed to having somebody stay in the cabin. In my view, the main issue, which the landlord confirmed is the breach they allege by the tenant, is having the tenant comply with the provision of the tenancy agreement that provides for the maximum occupancy of the property.
Based on the evidence, I find the landlord has not demonstrated the requirement for the removal of the cabin, as the presence of the cabin itself does not form part of the tenant’s breach, but rather the issue is one of the tenant breaching the maximum occupancy provision in the tenancy agreement.
I note from clause 12 of the tenancy agreement that the maximum occupancy of the property is 1 person. The date of the tenancy agreement may pre-date the arrival of the tenant’s now 3-year-old daughter. It appears the landlord has consented in practice to the tenant’s young daughter living at the property, though not formally yet. The parties can choose whether to vary the maximum occupancy provision in the tenancy agreement to reflect the tenant’s daughter living with the tenant, should they choose to do so.
As such, the tenant is ordered to immediately comply with the tenancy agreement provision setting out maximum occupancy at the property, unless agreed otherwise by the landlord.
Based on the evidence provided, as the landlord did not point to or provide sufficient evidence of the tenant breaching any legal obligation with having the cabin on site, the landlord’s claim for a work order to remove the tenant’s cabin from the property is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356372 — Tenancy dispute at 19 Farrelly Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356372 — Tenancy dispute at 19 Farrelly Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions