When a tenant installs a spa pool without permission, it sparks a heated dispute. Can they claim it’s a “minor change” under the law? This case uncovers the delicate balance between tenant rights and landlord concerns, setting a persuasive example for what qualifies as a “minor change.”
Case Background:
In this intriguing case, tenants installed a spa pool at the rear of their rental property without seeking prior consent from the landlord. The landlord, shocked by the installation, raised objections, arguing that the spa pool could jeopardize the property’s structural integrity, breach insurance conditions, and void the builder’s guarantee. The tenants, defending their actions, applied to the Tenancy Tribunal for a declaration that the installation was a “minor change” as defined under Section 42B (2) of the RTA. The landlord, countering with concerns about potential property damage and insurance implications, sought to have the installation removed.
Legal Authorities:
Sections 42, 42A, and 42B of the RTA, which govern the conditions under which a tenant may make changes to a rental property.
Section 42B (2) specifically defines a “minor change” as one that presents minimal risk of material damage, does not require regulatory consent, and can be easily reversed, among other criteria.
Landlord’s Response:
The Landlord argued that, had they been aware of the tenants’ intention, they would have never consented to rent the property. However, these concerns were not supported by concrete evidence, leaving the tribunal to assess whether the objections were reasonable under the law.
So, what was the outcome? And what are the key takeaways?
