How much money was awarded in case 5496198?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5496198?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5496198?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13866267-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5496198?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5496198?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5496198?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13866267-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

98G Luke Street East, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5496198 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5496198 about?

The tribunal order states: By consent, the landlord is authorised to enter the tenancy premises at 98G

Order

By consent, the landlord is authorised to enter the tenancy premises at 98G Luke Street East, Otahuhu, Auckland and undertake the removal of the yucca trees, removal of associated vegetation, disposal of all waste, repair or replacement of the damaged boundary fence, and reinstatement of the affected areas of the property.

The work is to be completed by 31 July 2026.

The tenants must pay the landlord $29,000.00, being the agreed cost of the work.

These costs may be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly.

The parties may agree upon a repayment arrangement once the work has been completed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted via video conference.

Ms Thompson-Wise appeared for the landlord.

Mr and Mrs Faleapa appeared as the tenants. Their daughter, Miss Faleapa, addressed me on behalf of her parents. Miss Faleapa has lived at the property for many years and advised that she grew up there.

The landlord sought a work order requiring the removal of a significant number of yucca trees planted by the tenants about 10 years ago. The evidence before me was that the yucca trees had grown substantially over time and were now causing damage to the boundary fence and affecting neighbouring properties.

The tenants accepted that the yucca trees now needed to be removed. They explained that the yucca trees had been planted about 10 years ago and that previous housing officers had not objected to them while they were smaller.

They had attempted to remove some of the yucca trees themselves since the notice to remedy was issued but found the work beyond their ability and did not have the necessary equipment to complete it safely.

Prior to the hearing the tenants had removed several trees themselves. The landlord advised that the original contractor's quotation had therefore been reduced to reflect the removal of those trees, resulting in a revised quoted cost of $39,524.00.

During the hearing Ms Thompson-Wise acknowledged that although the trees had become problematic over time, the landlord could reasonably have required their removal at an earlier stage before the work became as extensive as it is now. In recognition of that delay, the landlord first calculated a 20 percent reduction to the revised quotation and then offered a further concession. The landlord ultimately agreed to reduce the total amount payable to $29,000.00.

Miss Faleapa confirmed that her parents, the tenants, accepted that proposal. She advised that her parents agreed the landlord should undertake the work and that they accepted responsibility for paying the agreed amount, subject to making repayment arrangements after the work had been completed.

I am satisfied that the parties reached a genuine agreement during the hearing. The tenants understand that the work order authorises the landlord to enter the property and complete the necessary work. They also understand that the agreed cost of the work is $29,000.00.

As the work order section 78(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”) is made by consent, there is no need for me to determine whether a compulsory work order should otherwise be made or to make an alternative monetary order under section 78(1)(d) of the Act. Instead, I record the agreement reached between the parties.

I therefore make the work order by consent on the terms set out above. The landlord indicated that it intends to commence the work promptly, and the work is to be completed by 31 July 2026. The parties may discuss and agree upon an appropriate repayment arrangement after the work has been completed.

I thank both parties for their constructive discussion and the tenants for their understanding of why the removal of the yucca trees from the property was an important issue for the landlord to address.

Order

By consent, the landlord is authorised to enter the tenancy premises at 98G Luke Street East, Otahuhu, Auckland and undertake the removal of the yucca trees, removal of associated vegetation, disposal of all waste, repair or replacement of the damaged boundary fence, and reinstatement of the affected areas of the property.
The work is to be completed by 31 July 2026.
The tenants must pay the landlord $29,000.00, being the agreed cost of the work.
These costs may be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly.
The parties may agree upon a repayment arrangement once the work has been completed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted via video conference.
Ms Thompson-Wise appeared for the landlord.
Mr and Mrs Faleapa appeared as the tenants. Their daughter, Miss Faleapa, addressed me on behalf of her parents. Miss Faleapa has lived at the property for many years and advised that she grew up there.
The landlord sought a work order requiring the removal of a significant number of yucca trees planted by the tenants about 10 years ago. The evidence before me was that the yucca trees had grown substantially over time and were now causing damage to the boundary fence and affecting neighbouring properties.
The tenants accepted that the yucca trees now needed to be removed. They explained that the yucca trees had been planted about 10 years ago and that previous housing officers had not objected to them while they were smaller.
They had attempted to remove some of the yucca trees themselves since the notice to remedy was issued but found the work beyond their ability and did not have the necessary equipment to complete it safely.
Prior to the hearing the tenants had removed several trees themselves. The landlord advised that the original contractor's quotation had therefore been reduced to reflect the removal of those trees, resulting in a revised quoted cost of $39,524.00.
During the hearing Ms Thompson-Wise acknowledged that although the trees had become problematic over time, the landlord could reasonably have required their removal at an earlier stage before the work became as extensive as it is now. In recognition of that delay, the landlord first calculated a 20 percent reduction to the revised quotation and then offered a further concession. The landlord ultimately agreed to reduce the total amount payable to $29,000.00.
Miss Faleapa confirmed that her parents, the tenants, accepted that proposal. She advised that her parents agreed the landlord should undertake the work and that they accepted responsibility for paying the agreed amount, subject to making repayment arrangements after the work had been completed.
I am satisfied that the parties reached a genuine agreement during the hearing. The tenants understand that the work order authorises the landlord to enter the property and complete the necessary work. They also understand that the agreed cost of the work is $29,000.00.
As the work order section 78(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”) is made by consent, there is no need for me to determine whether a compulsory work order should otherwise be made or to make an alternative monetary order under section 78(1)(d) of the Act. Instead, I record the agreement reached between the parties.
I therefore make the work order by consent on the terms set out above. The landlord indicated that it intends to commence the work promptly, and the work is to be completed by 31 July 2026. The parties may discuss and agree upon an appropriate repayment arrangement after the work has been completed.
I thank both parties for their constructive discussion and the tenants for their understanding of why the removal of the yucca trees from the property was an important issue for the landlord to address.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5496198 — Property damage at 98G Luke Street East, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5496198 — Property damage at 98G Luke Street East, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions