What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4627389?

The tribunal order states: The application for termination is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4627389?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4627389?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4627389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9247157-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4627389?

The tribunal order states: The application for termination is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4627389?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4627389?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4627389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9247157-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Emerald Place, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4627389 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Penny Smith, property manager, represented Boutique Rentals BOP Limited.

Ms Smith advised that she is taking this claim for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations under direct instructions from the landlord/owner of the premises.

The landlord contends that the tenant is in breach of the terms of the tenancy agreement when the tenant kept 2 dogs at the property without the landlord’s consent. Ms Smith says that she has tried her utmost to work with the tenant to have the issue resolved but the dog(s) remained on the property. The landlord says that this proceeding is a last resort to get the issue resolved.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’).

On the face of the written terms of the tenancy agreement dated 23 April 2023, the tenant appears to have breached their obligations by keeping one or two dogs at the premises without the landlord’s consent. The agreement states that the tenant agrees not to keep or feed or allow anyone to keep or feed or allow any pet on or about the property unless the landlord agrees.

However, where the breach is capable of remedy, the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.

The landlord failed to serve any 14-day notice on the tenant at all.

The landlord’s notices presuppose that the breach is not capable of remedy. The landlord’s notice dated 19 May 2023 brings the tenant’s attention to the breach of the agreement forbidding pets and states that “this breach cannot be remedied by giving a specific time frame to rectify.”

I consider the breach in question capable of remedy; the tenant can remove the pets or dogs in question within a 14-day period.

Failing to issue a 14-day notice to remedy is fatal to the landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy.

For that reason alone, this application for termination of the tenancy under section 56 RTA must fail.

That said, I have also addressed a secondary issue that even if a valid 14-day notice had been served, it may not be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy given the nature and extent of the breach. Issue arises on whether the clause in the tenancy agreement forbidding pets of any kind to be kept on the premises may infringe the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment thereby resulting in that no-pets clause in the agreement being unenforceable.

The tenant is advised to apply for permission now formally from the landlord to keep one dog at the premises which consent I hope will not be unreasonably withheld.

For now, this application for termination must fail for the above reasons.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Penny Smith, property manager, represented Boutique Rentals BOP Limited.

Ms Smith advised that she is taking this claim for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations under direct instructions from the landlord/owner of the premises.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord failed to serve any 14-day notice on the tenant at all.

I consider the breach in question capable of remedy; the tenant can remove the pets or dogs in question within a 14-day period.

Failing to issue a 14-day notice to remedy is fatal to the landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy.

For that reason alone, this application for termination of the tenancy under section 56 RTA must fail.

The tenant is advised to apply for permission now formally from the landlord to keep one dog at the premises which consent I hope will not be unreasonably withheld.

For now, this application for termination must fail for the above reasons.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4627389 — 14-day notice at 8 Emerald Place, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4627389 — 14-day notice at 8 Emerald Place, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions