How much money was awarded in case 4529811?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4529811?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4529811?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9414105-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4529811?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4529811?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4529811?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9414105-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

49 Milson Drive, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4529811 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4529811 about?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 49 Milson Drive, Papakura, Papakura 2110 is terminated, and possession is granted to Pinnacle Real Estate Rentals Limited, at midnight on Friday 29 September 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended the telephone hearing on 14 September 2023.

The background facts are set out fully in the Tribunal’s order of 3 August 2023. The Tribunal directed that the tenant remedy the breach of the tenancy agreement and remove her pet dogs and cats from the tenancy by 5pm on Friday 25 August 2023.

The landlord says the pets are still there and seeks immediate termination. The tenant says she had removed one of the two dogs, she has a cat and has to keep her windows half-closed to stop other cats getting in.

The last inspection report is dated 25 July 2023 (the tenant says the inspection went ahead on 2 August 2023, the day before the last hearing). It refers to pets still being in the house and smells due to the pets.

The landlord attempted to inspect the property on 13 September 2023, but the tenant would not let them inside. The landlord observed several cats entering and exiting the property along with the sound of dogs barking from inside.

As mentioned in the previous order, earlier this year there was carpet staining caused by the pets resulting in replacement of the carpet at the tenant’s expense.

I find that there is an ongoing and intentional breach of the tenancy agreement, which does not permit pets. The landlord has served several notices to remedy and the Tribunal has also directed that the pets be removed. The previous order clearly indicated that termination was a real possibility if the pets were not removed. The landlord’s concern about damage to the property is not unreasonable given the previous carpet damage. The breach has been continuing since about March 2023. On the other hand, I can understand the sense of security and companionship the tenant derives from having pets, including a dog. Unfortunately, the landlord did not rent the property to the tenant on this basis. In all the circumstances, I find that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy (section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

As noted above, the landlord insisted on immediate termination. There is no evidence that the pets are causing damage to the premises, although this is an obvious risk, and the tenant has not helped herself by declining to grant the landlord entry for an inspection.

At the same time, the tenant says the dog does not live inside the house and she has not been able to find a tenancy that allows pets. The tenant has lived at the property for nearly 4 years and has taken responsibility for previous damage. She currently has nowhere to go. The tenant proposed moving out in 4-6 weeks. The landlord said immediate termination was necessary. In my view, the timing of termination of a tenancy, if grounds for termination are made out, is a matter for the discretion of the Tribunal. For the reasons given, I am not satisfied that immediate termination is appropriate. I have decided to give the tenant 2 weeks to move out.

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 49 Milson Drive, Papakura, Papakura 2110 is terminated, and possession is granted to Pinnacle Real Estate Rentals Limited, at midnight on Friday 29 September 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended the telephone hearing on 14 September 2023.
The background facts are set out fully in the Tribunal’s order of 3 August 2023. The Tribunal directed that the tenant remedy the breach of the tenancy agreement and remove her pet dogs and cats from the tenancy by 5pm on Friday 25 August 2023.
The landlord says the pets are still there and seeks immediate termination. The tenant says she had removed one of the two dogs, she has a cat and has to keep her windows half-closed to stop other cats getting in.
The last inspection report is dated 25 July 2023 (the tenant says the inspection went ahead on 2 August 2023, the day before the last hearing). It refers to pets still being in the house and smells due to the pets.
The landlord attempted to inspect the property on 13 September 2023, but the tenant would not let them inside. The landlord observed several cats entering and exiting the property along with the sound of dogs barking from inside.
As mentioned in the previous order, earlier this year there was carpet staining caused by the pets resulting in replacement of the carpet at the tenant’s expense.
I find that there is an ongoing and intentional breach of the tenancy agreement, which does not permit pets. The landlord has served several notices to remedy and the Tribunal has also directed that the pets be removed. The previous order clearly indicated that termination was a real possibility if the pets were not removed. The landlord’s concern about damage to the property is not unreasonable given the previous carpet damage. The breach has been continuing since about March 2023. On the other hand, I can understand the sense of security and companionship the tenant derives from having pets, including a dog. Unfortunately, the landlord did not rent the property to the tenant on this basis. In all the circumstances, I find that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy (section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
As noted above, the landlord insisted on immediate termination. There is no evidence that the pets are causing damage to the premises, although this is an obvious risk, and the tenant has not helped herself by declining to grant the landlord entry for an inspection.
At the same time, the tenant says the dog does not live inside the house and she has not been able to find a tenancy that allows pets. The tenant has lived at the property for nearly 4 years and has taken responsibility for previous damage. She currently has nowhere to go. The tenant proposed moving out in 4-6 weeks. The landlord said immediate termination was necessary. In my view, the timing of termination of a tenancy, if grounds for termination are made out, is a matter for the discretion of the Tribunal. For the reasons given, I am not satisfied that immediate termination is appropriate. I have decided to give the tenant 2 weeks to move out.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4529811 — Property damage at 49 Milson Drive, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4529811 — Property damage at 49 Milson Drive, Papakura, Papakura 2110

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