What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5360889 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must permanently remove the two unauthorised

How much money was awarded in case 5360889?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5360889?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5360889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13066587-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5360889 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must permanently remove the two unauthorised

How much money was awarded in case 5360889?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5360889?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5360889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13066587-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

79 Douglas Street, Whakatane, Whakatane 3120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5360889 — 14-day notice

Order

[The tenant/s] must permanently remove the two unauthorised cabins situated at 79 Douglas Street, Whakatane, 3120 by Monday 23 February 2026.

Reasons

On 7 October 2025, the landlord applied to the Tribunal for an order requiring the tenant to remove two unauthorised cabins that had been erected at 79 Douglas Street, Whakatane, 3120 (the “property”).
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Stephanie Smith, Senior Tribunal Adviser, appeared for the landlord. The tenant was joined to the hearing by telephone. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

Should the Tribunal make an order requiring the cabins to be removed?

The landlord claims that the tenant has erected two cabins at the property without obtaining the landlord’s written consent, in breach of Clause 28 of the Tenancy Agreement.
Clause 28 of the tenancy agreement states: Building other structures or making alterations at the premises 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.
Under section 56(1) of the Act the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the other party has committed a breach of the tenancy agreement or the Act, and, if the breach is capable of remedy, has failed to remedy it within a period of not less than 14 days.
The landlord issued a 14-day breach notice on 1 August 2025 requiring the tenant to permanently remove the two unauthorised cabins from the property by 19 August 2025. The breach has not been remedied.
The landlord does not seek termination of the tenancy at this juncture. The landlord seeks an order requiring the tenant to permanently remove the two cabins from the property within ten days of this order.
The Tribunal was provided with photographs showing the position of the cabins on the property. The landlord said that in addition to the tenant not receiving permission to build on the property, the cabins are: a. not consented. b. Have been situated over services into the property. c. Do not comply with local bylaws – specifically they are too close to the boundary line. d. Have no spouting or drainage which could lead to surface flooding; and e. It is unknown if they comply with the Healthy Homes Standards or are fitted with smoke alarms.
The landlord said that the tenant had previously been given consent for a cabin to be place on the property for a period of nine months three years ago. That consent lapsed when the original cabin was removed. Further, the landlord told the Tribunal that they will not consent to these cabins remaining on the property.
The tenant accepted that she did not seek the landlord’s approval to build the two cabins currently sited on the property. The tenant acknowledged previously being given permission to situate a PodLife cabin on the property and said that it was on that basis she had not anticipated a problem with building the current cabins on site.
The tenant told the Tribunal the cabins were built with the assistance of a grant from WINZ (Work and Income New Zealand). The Tribunal heard the tenant built the back cabin to alleviate overcrowding after being on the Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities waitlist for five years and not successfully securing a larger home for herself and her four children. The tenant said she built the front cabin to advertise her small business – providing cabins for commercial use. The tenant said the cabins are currently unoccupied as they are not connected to the sewerage, electricity or water supply and are being used for commercial purposes only, which is permitted under the tenancy agreement.
With regards to the issue of building consent, the tenant told the Tribunal that she did not think it was required due to the cabins limited size. The tenant offered to move the cabins away from the areas where the services come into the property, and told the Tribunal she did not remedy the 14-day breach notice because she cannot afford to pay the $2,500.00 removal costs.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenant has breach of the conditions of her tenancy agreement by erecting two cabins on the property without the landlord’s permission. In the circumstances it is appropriate to grant the order Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities seek.
The tenant must permanently remove the two cabins situated at the property by Monday 23 February 2026. Failure to do so could result in the landlord making a further application to the Tribunal.

Order

[The tenant/s] must permanently remove the two unauthorised cabins situated at 79 Douglas Street, Whakatane, 3120 by Monday 23 February 2026.

Reasons

On 7 October 2025, the landlord applied to the Tribunal for an order requiring the tenant to remove two unauthorised cabins that had been erected at 79 Douglas Street, Whakatane, 3120 (the “property”).
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Stephanie Smith, Senior Tribunal Adviser, appeared for the landlord. The tenant was joined to the hearing by telephone. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

Should the Tribunal make an order requiring the cabins to be removed?

The landlord claims that the tenant has erected two cabins at the property without obtaining the landlord’s written consent, in breach of Clause 28 of the Tenancy Agreement.
Clause 28 of the tenancy agreement states: Building other structures or making alterations at the premises 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.
Under section 56(1) of the Act the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the other party has committed a breach of the tenancy agreement or the Act, and, if the breach is capable of remedy, has failed to remedy it within a period of not less than 14 days.
The landlord issued a 14-day breach notice on 1 August 2025 requiring the tenant to permanently remove the two unauthorised cabins from the property by 19 August 2025. The breach has not been remedied.
The landlord does not seek termination of the tenancy at this juncture. The landlord seeks an order requiring the tenant to permanently remove the two cabins from the property within ten days of this order.
The Tribunal was provided with photographs showing the position of the cabins on the property. The landlord said that in addition to the tenant not receiving permission to build on the property, the cabins are: a. not consented. b. Have been situated over services into the property. c. Do not comply with local bylaws – specifically they are too close to the boundary line. d. Have no spouting or drainage which could lead to surface flooding; and e. It is unknown if they comply with the Healthy Homes Standards or are fitted with smoke alarms.
The landlord said that the tenant had previously been given consent for a cabin to be place on the property for a period of nine months three years ago. That consent lapsed when the original cabin was removed. Further, the landlord told the Tribunal that they will not consent to these cabins remaining on the property.
The tenant accepted that she did not seek the landlord’s approval to build the two cabins currently sited on the property. The tenant acknowledged previously being given permission to situate a PodLife cabin on the property and said that it was on that basis she had not anticipated a problem with building the current cabins on site.
The tenant told the Tribunal the cabins were built with the assistance of a grant from WINZ (Work and Income New Zealand). The Tribunal heard the tenant built the back cabin to alleviate overcrowding after being on the Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities waitlist for five years and not successfully securing a larger home for herself and her four children. The tenant said she built the front cabin to advertise her small business – providing cabins for commercial use. The tenant said the cabins are currently unoccupied as they are not connected to the sewerage, electricity or water supply and are being used for commercial purposes only, which is permitted under the tenancy agreement.
With regards to the issue of building consent, the tenant told the Tribunal that she did not think it was required due to the cabins limited size. The tenant offered to move the cabins away from the areas where the services come into the property, and told the Tribunal she did not remedy the 14-day breach notice because she cannot afford to pay the $2,500.00 removal costs.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenant has breach of the conditions of her tenancy agreement by erecting two cabins on the property without the landlord’s permission. In the circumstances it is appropriate to grant the order Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities seek.
The tenant must permanently remove the two cabins situated at the property by Monday 23 February 2026. Failure to do so could result in the landlord making a further application to the Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5360889 — 14-day notice at 79 Douglas Street, Whakatane, Whakatane 3120

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5360889 — 14-day notice at 79 Douglas Street, Whakatane, Whakatane 3120

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal make an order requiring the cabins to be removed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal make an order requiring the cabins to be removed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions