Tenant Must Remove Illegal Structure from Property
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered a tenant to remove an illegal structure from their property. The structure was considered unsafe and in violation of local regulations.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant must not affix any fixture to the premises without the prior written consent of the landlord.
📖 What the law says
This rule states that a tenant cannot attach anything permanent to the property, or make changes or additions, unless their tenancy agreement allows it or they have the landlord's written permission beforehand. The landlord cannot unreasonably refuse this permission. A tenant can remove fixtures they added before the tenancy ends, as long as it doesn't cause permanent damage to the property.
This rule outlines some of the types of orders the Tenancy Tribunal can make when it hears a case. These include declaring the status of a property or agreement, ordering one party to give possession of the property to another, or ordering a party to pay money.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal ordered the tenant to remove an illegal structure from the property.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to remove an illegal structure from the property due to safety and regulatory concerns. The structure was deemed unsafe and in breach of Council requirements.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5081083 1
[2025] NZTT 5081083
TENANCY TRIBUNAL - Remote Location
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The tenant must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 5pm on Friday, 21 March 2025:
a. Remove the structure erected on the boundary of the premises.
2. If the tenant fails to comply with either Order 1 above, then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of this work up to $2,500. These costs may be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing.
2. The landlord claims that the tenant has erected a structure on the premises which is unsafe, breaches Council requirements and needs to be removed. The landlord says that the tenant did not seek or obtain permission for the structure.
3. The parties agree that the structure is approximately 12m2. It is erected on the boundary (and the landlord says over the boundary of the premises). The tenant uses the structure as a shelter for his carving work. He would like the structure to stay. The parties have not been able to agree on a compromise or alternative solution.
4. The landlord gave evidence of advice from a maintenance contractor and [NAME] manager, as follows:
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5081083 2
a. [NAME]:
“Illegal structure evident on the property exterior, positioned at the rear of the Garage. Two of the four posts holding the structure up were installed on the neighbouring property up against the boundary fence. The corrugated steel sheet used for the roof of the structure was placed in sloping direction where rainwater would drain into the neighbouring property, potentially allowing water to pool in the adjacent yard. Electrical cables, multi-plug power point and a long light fixture could be seen hung from the timber framing posing a H&S risk.”
b. [NAME] Manager
• “After onsite inspection, I can confirm this is an illegal structure, this site is located in the Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone which requires buildings to be setback at least 1m from the side or rear boundary.
• The entire structure is obviously unsound, the workmanship was inferior and also there is no efficient drainage system (gutter/downpipe) in place. we have also noticed there are wirings, electrical cables under this illegal structure which posing a H&S risk.”
5. The [NAME] manager has also attended site with a representative of the Auckland City Council. The landlord reports that the Council confirmed [NAME] manager’s assessment of the structure. The landlord should have provided evidence directly from the Council.
6. Section 42 Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) provides that a tenant must not affix any fixture to the premises, or make any renovation, alteration, or addition of or to the premises, except in accordance with the tenancy agreement or with the prior written consent of the landlord (under s42A RTA). Neither of those exceptions apply in this case. “Premises” includes land.
7. [NAME] has erected a structure on the premises. The addition is more than minor (see s42B(2) RTA). The evidence establishes that the structure likely requires regulatory consent and, in its current format, poses safety risks in relation electrical wiring. [NAME] has breached s42 RTA.
8. The landlord has applied for a work order for removal of the structure. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. I find that a work order is appropriate. Given the safety and regulatory issues with the structure, I decline to make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA)(d) RTA.
9. A work order may also authorise the landlord to undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of doing the work, if the tenant should fail to comply with the work order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5081083 3
10. The landlord provided evidence of the cost it would incur to remove the structure. It is prepared to allow [NAME] some time to demolish the structure but sought an order that it could do the work if [NAME] does not. I have made an order accordingly.
11. I encourage the parties to look for a solution that is compliant, structurally sound and which allows [NAME] to continue with his carving on site.
12. For completeness, I record that the landlord did not seek reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.
[NAME]
18 February 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5081083 4
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5081083 5
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenant did not seek or obtain permission for the structure.
- The structure was built on the boundary and possibly over the boundary of the premises.
- The structure posed safety risks due to electrical wiring and drainage issues.
- The structure required regulatory consent but was built without it.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant wanted to keep the structure as a shelter for his carving work.
- The landlord did not provide direct evidence from the Auckland City Council.
- The landlord did not seek reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision ordered the tenant to remove an illegal structure from the property.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about an illegal structure erected by the tenant without the landlord's permission.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant must remove the structure because it was illegal, unsafe, and violated local regulations.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 42 and 78, were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the tenant had erected an illegal structure without permission, which posed safety risks.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have the necessary permissions before making any alterations to their rental property.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence from a maintenance contractor and a council representative confirmed the structure was illegal and unsafe.