Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5468449 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 6 May 2026 · Published 6 May 2026 · Application 5468449
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
J Setefano
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
- The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
- [The respondent/s] must ensure that the shipping container is fully removed from the premises at [Tenancy Address}, no later than Thursday 14 May 2026.
Reasons
- This application concerns a claim by the landlord, Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities seeking a work order requiring the tenant, [The respondent/s] to remove a shipping container located at the rental premises. The landlord submits that the presence and use of the container constitutes a breach of both the tenancy agreement and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”). Attendance at Hearing and Updated Position
- Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant does not dispute the landlord’s claim. The tenant confirmed that she has now arranged for the removal of the shipping container and anticipates that it will be removed imminently, with removal expected to occur today.
- In light of this, the issue before the Tribunal is limited to ensuring that the breach is formally remedied within a defined and enforceable timeframe. Background
- The tenancy commenced on 10 February 2023.
- The landlord became aware of a shipping container on the premises in January 2026 and made attempts to engage with the tenant regarding its presence and use.
- While the container was initially described as being used for storage, subsequent inspection established that it was fitted out and used as a bedroom, including the presence of a bed, shelving, clothing, and electrical connections. The tenant later acknowledged that the container was being used to assist a person experiencing homelessness.
- A 14-day notice to remedy was issued on 12 February 2026 requiring removal of the container by 2 March 2026. Despite follow-up visits and engagement, the container remained on site beyond the expiry of that notice, leading to this application. Relevant Law
- Section 42(1)(b) of the Act provides that a tenant must not make any alteration, addition, or renovation to the premises except in accordance with the tenancy agreement or with the prior written consent of the landlord.
- Clause 17 of the tenancy agreement reinforces this obligation by requiring the tenant to obtain permission before making any changes to the premises.
- Section 56 of the Act requires that, where a breach is capable of remedy, a compliant notice to remedy must first be given. If the breach is not remedied, the Tribunal may make appropriate orders.
- Section 77 of the Act empowers the Tribunal to make work orders requiring a party to remedy a breach of the Act or the tenancy agreement. Analysis
- I am satisfied that the placement and use of the shipping container constitutes an alteration or addition to the premises within the meaning of section 42(1)(b) of the Act. The container is a substantial structure and was used as a habitable space, which materially alters the nature and use of the premises.
- There is no evidence that the tenant sought or obtained the landlord’s consent. Accordingly, I find that the tenant has breached section 42(1)(b) of the Act and clause 17 of the tenancy agreement.
- I am also satisfied that the landlord issued a valid 14-day notice to remedy in accordance with section 56, and that the breach was not remedied within the timeframe specified.
- However, I take into account that the tenant now accepts the breach and has taken active steps to remedy it by arranging for the removal of the container. This is a relevant mitigating factor and demonstrates a willingness to comply.
- In these circumstances, a work order remains appropriate to ensure that the breach is remedied, but it is not necessary to consider any further or more serious orders. Findings
- I find that the tenant has breached section 42(1)(b) of the Act and clause 17 of the tenancy agreement by placing and using a shipping container on the premises without the landlord’s consent. I further find that the landlord complied with the requirements of section 56 by issuing a valid notice to remedy, and that the breach was not remedied within the required timeframe.
- A work order is made requiring the tenant to remove the shipping container from the premises.
- The tenant is to ensure that the shipping container is fully removed no later than Thursday 14 May 2026.
- The tenant is expected to comply fully with this work order by the date specified. If the tenant fails to comply, the landlord may apply to the Tribunal for further orders including an order for termination of the tenancy under section 56 of the Act.
- The landlord does not seek a suppression order. As this is essentially a consent order, I consider it reasonable to suppress the tenant’s name and identifying details.