What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9064904?

The tribunal order states: Kenneth Henry George must by 5:00pm on Friday 1 August 2025 complete the

How much money was awarded in case 9064904?

unit during ordinary working hours o…: $100,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9064904?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9064904?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12038404-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9064904?

The tribunal order states: Kenneth Henry George must by 5:00pm on Friday 1 August 2025 complete the

How much money was awarded in case 9064904?

unit during ordinary working hours o…: $100,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9064904?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9064904?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12038404-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Milford, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9064904 — State of repair

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9064904. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
unit during ordinary working hours of Monday to Friday between 9:00am and 5:00pm. 5. The applicant’s claim for economic	$100,000.00		unit during ordinary working hours of Monday to Friday between 9:00am and 5:00pm. 5. The applicant’s claim for economic

Kenneth Henry George must by 5:00pm on Friday 1 August 2025 complete the following work: a) Remove all his property or materials whatsoever from the common property including removing any vehicles from the common area other than up to two vehicles in proper working order that have valid warrants of fitness, which may be parked on the designated parking area in front of Unit 1’s garage. b) Make his unit clean an tidy, which will include: i.Removing non-operational vehicles, car parts, boat parts, building materials, junk, or other inappropriate objects from the exterior of the unit. ii.Restoring the unit’s rear yard to garden/recreational use only (i.e. not as a storage area). iii.Tidying and cleaning the interior of the unit including removing excess chattels or objects; and ensuring his use of the interior does not allow rats or other vermin to take up residence, create a fire or safety or health risk to others. c) Remove the pavers from the common property driveway area he placed and reinstate the lawn in the common property driveway area he removed.

Kenneth Henry George must refrain from: a) Using the common area to keep or store any objects including personal belongings, property, junk, or any other thing whatsoever. b) Parking any vehicles on the common area other than the designated common area in front of the unit’s garage. c) Storing vehicles on the development (including his own unit) not in serviceable condition. d) Allowing his unit to become excessively cluttered or prone to become infested with rats or other vermin. e) Allowing the outdoor unit area to become untidy, unsightly, unclean, cluttered with objects, susceptible to infestation by rats or other vermin, or to pose a risk to the health or safety of other unit owners or visitors to the development. f)Using the garden/outdoor area other than primarily for garden or recreational purposes.

If Kenneth Henry George fails to carry out the work set out in paragraph 1 of this order by 1 August 2025, or does not refrain from doing the things set out in paragraph 2 of this order, the body corporate or its agents or contractors may upon giving Mr George 24 hours’ notice, carry out the work specified in paragraph 1 or remedy the breach of paragraph 2, and recover any costs the body corporate incurs to carry out that work from Mr George as a debt due to the body corporate.

Kenneth Henry George must upon the body corporate giving at least 24 hours’ notice that it requires access to the unit or the common areas adjacent to the unit for the purposes of inspection, maintenance (including pest eradication and prevention), repair: permit the body corporate’s contractors or agents reasonable access to unit 1 or the common property adjacent to the unit during ordinary working hours of Monday to Friday between 9:00am and 5:00pm.

The applicant’s claim for economic loss of about $100,000.00 is withdrawn without prejudice.

Reasons

I heard this matter at the North Shore District Court yesterday, 27 June 2025.

Katherine Casey and Jennifer Casey attended for the applicant Cafle Holdings.

Mr George, the respondent, did not attend. The Tribunal attempted to contact him by phone and email but did not reach him. The hearing proceeded in Mr George’s absence.

The applicant alleges Mr George has made his unit and its surrounds an unsightly junkyard, has co-opted a section of the common property for parking his vehicle, and is not allowing the body corporate reasonable access for maintenance and repairs. For remedy, the applicant seeks work orders that Mr George remove the junk, reinstate the co-opted common area, an order that Mr George allow access, and an order he refrain from repeating the behaviour.

The applicant originally claimed for economic loss based on his actions having reduced the amenity thereby reducing it rental income from its units. The applicant estimated that loss as being as high as $100,000.00. However, the applicant elected not to pursue this claim for now. The claim is therefore withdrawn without prejudice. The claim may be reinstated at the applicant’s request. Background

In 2012 and 2013, the body corporate brought proceedings against Mr George. The main claim was that Mr George’s hoarding-type behaviour led to the creation of a “junkyard” or “dumping ground” on and about the unit of items including derelict vehicles and piles of assorted objects and materials.

The Tribunal issued decisions on 19 October 2012, 30 January 2013, 7 June 2013, and 16 October 2013. I am not going to traverse those decisions, but a representative extract from one of them is Adjudicator J Hogan’s observation:

The tribunal has no doubt that the use by Mr George of hi accessory unit as s a dumping ground rather that a presentable lawn of garden is clearly causing economic harm to the other unit owners and is socially destructive of he co-operative relationship needed and legally required to sustain the development

In this matter, 10 years later, the applicant alleges Mr George has “reverted to his old ways” and the “situation now is worse than that described by the Tribunal”. 1

Further says the applicant: 2

Particularly since Cafle became the owner of the other two units at 4 Quebec Road, George has deposited and stored large quantities of junk and waste material, including derelict vehicles (themselves filled with junk) on his front yard (i.e. Accessory Unit 1) and on the driveway and other common property. In an endeavour to reduce the unsightliness (George’s front yard faces the street) the Body Corporate constructed a wooden screen fence around his front yard.

Despite this fence, George has continued to accumulate junk and other materials, including a derelict car (itself full of junk) on the common property and elsewhere within his unit, such as to be an eyesore from the street and other units and the common area, and to substantially interfere with the use and enjoyment by Cafle and its tenants of their units and the common property.

The exterior of George’s principal unit is in a run-down condition and is unsightly. It is surrounded by junk and other waste materials, including on the upstairs balcony.

Mr George has installed paving on part of the common property that had previously been lawn. He now parks his vehicle on the paved area. The body corporate has not approved the conversion.

The junk and scrap material has attracted rats and ants, which have spread through the entire development. The body corporate is having to pay for regular pest control to suppress these pests.

Moreover, the applicant says, Mr George is not cooperating with the body corporate’s attempts to repair and maintain the premises.

The issues are: 1 Claim for Relief para 11. 2 Claim for Relief para 12 ffg. a) Is Mr George in breach of his duties under the body corporate rules and/or the UTA? b) If so, what orders should be made? =

Is Mr George in breach of his unit owner duties?

Legal principles

The UTA sets out unit owners and body corporates rights and responsibilities. The unit owners’ duties include not interfering with the reasonable enjoyment of other unit owners, not damaging the common property, permitting the body corporate access to the unit for the purpose of maintenance work, and complying with body corporate rules.

The body corporate’s duties include carrying out maintenance to the building elements and infrastructure such as rooves and guttering.

UTA s 138 provides inter alia: 138 Body corporate duties of repair and maintenance (1) The body corporate must repair and maintain— (a) the common property; and (b) any assets designed for use in connection with the common property; and (c) any other assets owned by the body corporate; and (d) any building elements and infrastructure that relate to or serve more than 1 unit. (2) ... (3) The body corporate may access at all reasonable hours any unit to enable it to carry out repairs and maintenance under this section.

Section 80 of the UTA most relevantly provides: 80 Responsibilities of owners of principal units (1) An owner of a principal unit— (a) must permit the body corporate (or its agents) to enter the unit at any time in an emergency and at all reasonable hours, and after giving reasonable notice, for any of the following purposes: (i) to view the condition of the unit for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with the principal unit owners’ or occupiers’ obligations under this Act: (ii) to maintain, repair, or renew any infrastructure for services and utilities that serve more than 1 unit and any building elements that affect more than 1 unit or the common property, or both: (iii) to maintain, repair, or renew any common property: (iv) to ensure the body corporate operational rules are being complied with: (b) must do all things necessary to give effect to decisions of the body corporate: ... (d) must comply with all laws and legal requirements relating to the use, occupation, or enjoyment of the unit: ... (g) must repair and maintain the unit and keep it in good order to ensure that no damage or harm, whether physical, economic, or otherwise, is, or has the potential to be, caused to the common property, any building element, any infrastructure, or any other unit in the building: ... (j) must comply with the body corporate operational rules: ...

The body corporate rules include the following rules:

Interference and obstruction of common property An Owner must a) Not interfere with the reasonable use or enjoyment of the common property by other Owners, or obstruct any lawful use of the common property by other Owners. b) Not obstruct or interfere with the reasonable use or enjoyment of the common property, entrances, lobbies, lifts, escalators, stairways and corridors by other Owners, or obstruct any lawful use of the common property by other owners.

Damage to common property An owner must not damage or deface the common property.

Use of facilities, assets and improvements An Owner must not a)Use any facilities contained within the common property, or any assets and improvements that form part of the common property, for any use other than the use for which those facilities, assets or improvements were designed and constructed, and must comply with any conditions of use for such facilities. assets or improvements set by the Body Corporate from time to time. b)Make any alteration to any paved or sealed area without first obtaining written consent of the Body Corporate. ... e)Allow any rubbish or litter to accumulate in on the common property. ...

Vehicle Parking a)An Owner must not park a vehicle or permit a vehicle to be parked on any part of the common property unless the Body Corporate has designated it for vehicle parking or the Body Corporate has given prior written consent. b)An Owner, in respect of any area that is designated for use as a vehicle park must: i.Only use the vehicle park for the purpose of parking vehicles. ii.Ensure the vehicle park is kept tidy and free of litter. iii.Not use the vehicle park or permit it to be used for storage. iv.Ensure any vehicle parked in the vehicle park is parked within the boundaries of vehicle park. v.Not use the area for maintenance or repair work, other than minor work, on any vehicle. ...

Rubbish and pest control An Owner must; a)Not leave rubbish or recycling material on the common property, except in areas designated for rubbish collection by the Body Corporate, and where such material is left in a designated rubbish collection area, it must not be left in such a way that interferes with the enjoyment of the common property by other Owners. b)Dispose of rubbish and recycling materials promptly, hygienically and tidily using properly secured and sealed rubbish bags and ensure such disposal does not adversely affect the health, hygiene or comfort of other Owners. c)Ensure that bottles are completely drained, cleaned and deposited in unbroken condition in the area designated for bottles and all other rubbish must be drained and securely wrapped in small parcels and deposited in the area designated for rubbish. d)Not burn any rubbish anywhere on the common property or in any unit. e)Keep the unit free of any vermin, pests, rodents and insects.

Cleaning and garden maintenance An Owner must ensure the unit is kept clean at all times and any gardens, grounds, yards or paved areas within the unit are kept neat and tidy and are regularly maintained.

Interior of the unit An Owner shall a)Not use or permit the unit to be used for any purpose other than in accordance with the requirements of the District Plan. b)Be responsible for the interior maintenance and decoration of their unit. c)Not use or permit the unit to be used for any purpose which is illegal or which may be injurious to the reputation of any unit. d)Repair and maintain the interior of the unit and keep it in sufficiently good order, repair and condition to ensure that no damage, harm, or diminution in value occurs to the common property of any other unit...

Lawns and gardens on common property An Owner must not damage any lawn, garden, tree, shrub, plant or flower being part of or situated on the common property or, without the prior written consent of the Body Corporate, use any part of the common property as a garden for their own purposes. Storage of junk

The applicant produced photographs of the exterior of Mr George’s unit and the Caseys gave evidence about the interior of the unit.

The photographs show that Mr George has again assembled a similar array of junk to that the Tribunal recorded in 2012 and 2013. The outside of his unit resembles a particularly unkempt dump. There is a derelict car (with junk inside and around it) on the forecourt of his unit. The unit’s garden is congested with the like of car wheels, discarded building materials, rope, polystyrene, and all manner of apparently worthless materials. It is an ugly scene. Nobody would want to live next door to such

Under rule 10, Mr George “must ensure the unit is kept clean at all times and any gardens, grounds, yards or paved areas within the unit are kept neat and tidy and are regularly maintained”. Mr George is in breach of that rule. Mr George “must comply with the body corporate operational rules” pursuant to s 80(1)(j). He is in breach of this duty also.

Under s 80(1)(g) of the UTA Mr George is required to keep his unit “in good order to ensure that no damage or harm, whether physical, economic, or otherwise, is, or has caused to...any other unit in the building”. The existence of a veritable junkyard on the street front and right next door harms the other units economically and otherwise by reducing their amenity and value. The junk and piles of anything and everything are also providing a home for pests in breach of that paragraph.

The interior of Mr George’s unit is similarly excessively cluttered with objects. That is in breach of rules 11(c) and (d) for being injurious to the reputation of the other units and diminishing the value of the other units. Paving over common property lawn area and parking on common area

Perhaps as a consequence of using his intended car parking area to store junk Mr George has, without the body corporate’s consent, paved part of the common property driveway that was previously a grassed area. He has been using that area to park a vehicle. That is in breach of the rules because he has damaged the common property, and the area is not designated for parking. 3 Refusing access

I am satisfied that Mr George has repeatedly refused to allow the body corporate reasonable access to his unit and the common area adjacent to his unit for it to carry out necessary maintenance work such as maintaining the development’s rooves and guttering. 4 Conclusion

The applicant has proven that Mr George is in breach of the rules and the UTA in respect to the untidy state of his unit, damaging and using the common area driveway, and not permitting the body corporate access for repairs and maintenance.

What orders should the Tribunal make?

The Tribunal may make orders that a party do anything to remedy a relevant breach or to refrain from doing anything that would constitute a relevant breach. Section 171(3A) provides: (3A) Without limiting the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 that apply to a Tenancy Tribunal by virtue of section 176 of this Act, a Tenancy Tribunal may, in relation to a unit title dispute within its jurisdiction under this section, do any of the following: (a) order any party to do anything necessary to remedy a breach by that party of an obligation arising under this Act, the body corporate operational rules, or any agreement that is binding on the party and relevant to the unit title dispute: (b) order any party to refrain from doing anything that would constitute a breach of an obligation arising under this Act, the body corporate operational rules, or any agreement that is binding on the party and relevant to the unit title dispute: 3 In breach of rules 3 and 5 and the Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA) s 80(1)(j). 4 In breach of UTA s 80(1)(a)(iii).

The breaches having been proven as discussed above, it is incumbent on the Tribunal to make orders that Mr George remedy the breaches and refrain from doing so.

Mr George must make the outside of his unit “neat and tidy”. To begin to achieve that he must remove the junk and inappropriate items from outside his unit. He may park up to two cars in the area designated in front of the unit’s garage. The garden must be restored to a garden from the scrap yard it resembles. Garden implements such as rakes and spades may be stored out of sight; car parts, discarded building materials, junk and the like may not be stored in the garden.

Of course the Tribunal cannot stipulate every detail in its orders to ensure Mr George returns and maintains his unit to a tidy condition and keeps it that way. Common sense is required. Mr George’s unit should be returned to and maintained to a reasonably clean and tidy state. “Reasonably clean and tidy” means clean and tidy to the standard an objective bystander would consider was reasonably clean and tidy. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness and tidiness does not mean spotless, immaculate, or commercially clean, hotel or motel standard. 5

Nor does the Tribunal wish to impinge upon Mr George’s reasonable and appropriate use of his own premises. He must however appreciate he lives in a body corporate environment where unit owners are entitled to rely on each other to not cause their units to fall into rack and ruin to the detriment of the other unit owners.

Mr George must permit the body corporate access to perform its repair and maintenance duties, the performance of which protects all of the units in the development.

I will also allow for the body corporate carrying out work should Mr George breach the Tribunal’s orders.

The applicant can make a further application if Mr George does not comply with the letter and the spirit of the Tribunal’s orders.

The applicant is at liberty to raise its claim for economic loss at a later hearing if required.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 9064904. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
unit during ordinary working hours of Monday to Friday between 9:00am and 5:00pm. 5. The applicant’s claim for economic	$100,000.00		unit during ordinary working hours of Monday to Friday between 9:00am and 5:00pm. 5. The applicant’s claim for economic

The applicant’s claim for economic loss of about $100,000.00 is withdrawn without prejudice.

Reasons

I heard this matter at the North Shore District Court yesterday, 27 June 2025.

Katherine Casey and Jennifer Casey attended for the applicant Cafle Holdings.

Mr George, the respondent, did not attend. The Tribunal attempted to contact him by phone and email but did not reach him. The hearing proceeded in Mr George’s absence.

In this matter, 10 years later, the applicant alleges Mr George has “reverted to his old ways” and the “situation now is worse than that described by the Tribunal”. 1

Further says the applicant: 2

The exterior of George’s principal unit is in a run-down condition and is unsightly. It is surrounded by junk and other waste materials, including on the upstairs balcony.

Mr George has installed paving on part of the common property that had previously been lawn. He now parks his vehicle on the paved area. The body corporate has not approved the conversion.

The junk and scrap material has attracted rats and ants, which have spread through the entire development. The body corporate is having to pay for regular pest control to suppress these pests.

Moreover, the applicant says, Mr George is not cooperating with the body corporate’s attempts to repair and maintain the premises.

Is Mr George in breach of his unit owner duties?

Legal principles

The body corporate’s duties include carrying out maintenance to the building elements and infrastructure such as rooves and guttering.

The body corporate rules include the following rules:

Damage to common property An owner must not damage or deface the common property.

The applicant produced photographs of the exterior of Mr George’s unit and the Caseys gave evidence about the interior of the unit.

What orders should the Tribunal make?

The breaches having been proven as discussed above, it is incumbent on the Tribunal to make orders that Mr George remedy the breaches and refrain from doing so.

Mr George must permit the body corporate access to perform its repair and maintenance duties, the performance of which protects all of the units in the development.

I will also allow for the body corporate carrying out work should Mr George breach the Tribunal’s orders.

The applicant can make a further application if Mr George does not comply with the letter and the spirit of the Tribunal’s orders.

The applicant is at liberty to raise its claim for economic loss at a later hearing if required.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9064904 — State of repair in Milford, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9064904 — State of repair in Milford, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is Mr George in breach of his unit owner duties?

What orders should the Tribunal make?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is Mr George in breach of his unit owner duties?

What orders should the Tribunal make?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions