Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5388484 — Leaks
Decided 6 Mar 2026 · Published 6 Mar 2026 · Application 5388484
- Leaks
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
R Harvey-Lane
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
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 application is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The tenant applies for an order declaring that certain conditions imposed by the landlord on consent for the placement of a shipping container are unreasonable. Background
- The tenant requested permission to place a small, non-habitable steel shipping container in the rear yard for storage and workshop use. The container is approximately 2.74 metres high, 2.44 metres wide and around 6-7 square metres.
- The landlord initially declined consent on the basis that the container was considered to be an additional dwelling and that relevant bylaws required separation distances equivalent to the height of the structure.
- There were discussions between the parties on how the shipping container could be placed including whether the side yard of the property was appropriate, however, due to the private owner along that boundary declining access, and some issues with services and utilities, this location was not possible.
- Following the provision of further information by the tenant, the landlord reversed the original decision and on 31 October 2025, granted consent subject to conditions. There were eight conditions in total, with the conditions in dispute being: a. Placement: The container to be in the rear yard, one metre set back from the rear boundary, beside the soak pit area (not over) with the rear of the container on the grass and the front of the container on the concrete patio. Due to the differing ground medium, the tenant must provide a stable base for the container and not lay the container directly across the two surfaces (for example wooden timer posts laid horizontally between the back and the front of the container). b. Electrical: Any power supply to the container to be installed in accordance with New Zealand Electrical standards and the landlord must be supplied with a copy of Electrical Certificate Completion (Certificate of Compliance). The tenant is responsible for the costs to install the power supply and obtain the electrical certificate.
- The tenant considers these two conditions unreasonable. The tenant says the patio is not structurally suitable to support the weight of a heavy steel container, the container cannot be placed in the specified orientation due to access and crane limitations, and the container supplier’s rent-to-buy agreement prohibits permanent wiring.
- The tenant sought amendments to the conditions. When no agreement was reached, the tenant applied to the Tribunal seeking: a. A declaration that refusal to amend the placement and electrical conditions was unreasonable. b. Permission for the container to be placed fully on the grassed area (not the patio); and c. Permission to use temporary outdoor RCD-protected power in accordance with Regulation 20 of the Electricity (Safety) Regulations 2010. Submissions Tenant
- The tenant submits that the container will not be used as a dwelling. It will contain no plumbing, cooking facilities, or sleeping areas, and is intended solely for storage and workshop use.
- She further says that the container is an accessory structure and does not require building consent under Schedule 1 of the Building Act 2004 and that the landlord has incorrectly characterised the container as an additional dwelling.
- The tenant accepts most of the landlord’s conditions, including responsibility for insurance, placement on a base, avoidance of the soak pit, and liability for any damage. However, the tenant challenges: a. The placement condition, saying it is unsafe and impractical; and b. The electrical condition, saying permanent wiring is unnecessary, prohibited by the container supply contract and inconsistent with Regulation 20 of Electricity (Safety) Regulations 2010, which is said to allow temporary flexible connections for non-habitable structures.
- The tenant submits that the landlord’s requirement for electrician-installed wiring and certification applies only to fixed installations and is unreasonable in the context of a non-habitable accessory structure. The tenant relies on sections 42B and 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and also refers to the local authority’s district plan and the Building Act 2004.
- The tenant also says that there are other buildings at the property that do not comply with the boundary and dwelling setback requirements now being imposed by the landlord. Landlord
- The landlord submits that the conditions were imposed after careful consideration of property protection and occupant safety and says these are non-negotiable.
- The landlord states that there is only one location that the nine-foot container can be placed in the rear section. They say this placement requires that it be one metre off the boundary, resulting in placement needing to be across both grass and patio (due to the size of the container). The landlord relies on information from the local authority, requirements under the Building Act and the location of existing services at the property.
- The landlord submits that as they do not actively monitor the premises, they require assurances that any electrical supply to ancillary structures comply with appropriate health and safety standards and are installed by qualified professional(s). The landlord does not accept personal assurances regarding the use of supervision of temporary electrical conditions. The law
- Section 42 of the RTA provides that a tenant must not make any alteration or addition to the premises without the landlord’s written consent.
- Section 42B of the RTA provides that a landlord must not unreasonably without consent to a fixture, renovation, alteration, or addition, and that it is deemed unreasonable to withhold consent to a “minor change”.
- A minor change is defined as a change that meets the criteria set out in section 42B(4), including low risk of damage, ease of reversal, no health and safety risk, no compromise to structural integrity and no requirement for regulatory consent. Is the cabin a “minor change”?
- The tenant submits that the container constitutes a minor change. The landlord does not agree.
- I find that the installation of the proposed container is not a minor change within the meaning of section 42B of the RTA. The container would materially alter the use and appearance of the premises, increase the footprint of structures on the land by 6-7 square metres, and reduce available yard space (on a small section).
- The container is not readily reversible in the manner contemplated by the minor change provisions. The placement and removal would require specialised equipment (including a Hiab), co-ordinated access, and carries a risk of damage to the land beneath it.
- Accordingly, the landlord was not required to grant consent under the minor change provisions. Are the landlord’s conditions unreasonable?
- The issue therefore becomes whether the landlord has imposed unreasonable conditions on the consent it has granted.
- Reasonableness under the RTA is not a question of whether the landlord’s conditions are the minimum legally required (for example under the Building Act 2004 or associated regulations and district plans), but whether they are rational, proportionate, and connected to legitimate property or safety interests, having regard to: a. The nature of the proposed addition; b. The risk it poses; c. The evidence available; and d. The impact on the tenant’s lawful use of the premises.
- A landlord may not impose conditions that are arbitrary, impractical, or disconnected from their stated purpose, even where a landlord has acted in good faith.
- I also note that it is not the Tribunal’s role to substitute itself into the role of a local authority, and consider zoning, different requirements for accessory buildings, dwellings and the definition of these. The question for the Tribunal is only one of reasonableness. Placement condition
- The landlord’s placement condition is connected to legitimate statutory requirements: That the container must be at least 1 metre from the boundary. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the container must be placed at least 1 metre from the boundary. I do not have any expert evidence to the contrary and it is not the Tribunal’s role to independently verify local authority or Building Act 2004 requirements, or to carry out its own research of legislation or regulations.
- Given the container’s width, partial placement on the patio appears to be unavoidable. If the container can or could be one metre from the boundary and not be on the patio, (as was submitted by the tenant at the hearing) it is likely that this would also be acceptable to the landlord (subject to the other conditions). The placement of existing buildings at the property are not relevant to this assessment.
- The condition is practical, rational and reasonably connected to protecting the premises and complying with the landlord’s understanding of regulatory obligations.
- I find the placement condition is reasonable.
- I also note that within the orders sought section of the tenant’s submissions, she requests an order permitting installation of the container subject to rear setback >1.0m and separation from dwelling of >3.6m which only lends itself to support the conclusion of reasonableness. Electrical condition
- The landlord requires any electrical supply to be installed by a registered electrician and certified.
- Electrical safety is a legitimate concern, and the landlord is entitled to require professional verification of compliance.
- The condition does not require permanent wiring; it requires confirmation from a qualified electrician that any electrical arrangement, whether temporary or otherwise, is safe and compliant. This condition is both practical and rational with legitimate connection to safety interests.
- The electrical condition is reasonable.
- The tenant submitted that the landlord must act reasonably and not interfere with the tenant’s lawful use and enjoyment of the property. However, the imposed conditions do not interfere with the tenant’s ordinary residential occupation. There is no breach of s38 of the RTA.
- Both the placement and electrical conditions imposed by the landlord are therefore reasonable. Summary
- The application is dismissed.
- The tenant requested name suppression. I consider that she raised a legitimate and novel question concerning the interaction between landlord discretion, safety regulation and s42B of the RTA. There is no public interest requiring identification of the tenant. Name suppression is therefore granted. The landlord did not request name suppression. R Harvey-Lane 06 March 2026