What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4749569?

The tribunal order states: The tenant is to rehome all the cats at the premises within 14 days of the date of

How much money was awarded in case 4749569?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4749569?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4749569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9744493-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4749569?

The tribunal order states: The tenant is to rehome all the cats at the premises within 14 days of the date of

How much money was awarded in case 4749569?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4749569?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4749569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9744493-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17 Leslie Road, Tapapa, RD 3, Tirau 3483 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4749569 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenant is to rehome all the cats at the premises within 14 days of the date of this notice. The cats are not to be replaced.
The claim for termination is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not appear.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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.
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 tenant has breached their obligations by having cats at the premises. The tenancy agreement states that no pets are allowed. The landlord received a photo of a cat at the premises from the landlord. They noticed a cat in the window as they drove past the premises.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 8 November 2023 reminding the tenant that no pets were allowed at the premises and confirming that a cat was seen at the premises on 8 November 2023.The tenant was given 14 days to remedy this.
The landlord said that she had informed the tenant that she would be returning in 14 days to see if the tenant had remedied the breach. But when she returned to the premises on 21 st November, she found there were 2 cats at the premises.
The landlord was contacted by the SPCA asking to access the premises to help rehome the cats. The landlord contacted the tenant who agreed to let the SPCA have access. A copy of a text was provided from the SPCA states that they were meeting with the tenant to take most of the cats and the kittens.
In determining factors relevant to wether it would be inequitable to refues to terminate a tenancy based on a breach of section 56 RTA, the District Court in Dean Huff v City Central Property Management Limited [2020] NZDC 19229, at paragraph 61, considered, a) The history of the tenancy, b) Whether there has been presistant falings after repeated warnings, c) Whether the history of breaches was such that it was unlikeley the tenant would comply with their future obligations, d) Whether the breach was inadverdent or deliberately committed, e) The conduct of the landlord, f)The gravity of the breach, g) Whether termination is the correct response to the breach.
When applying those considerations to the current claim, the tenancy began in October 2023 and the landlord said that she made it clear at the application stage that there were no pets at the premises. This was endorsed by the tenancy agreement which states n pets. There has been only one 14-day notice issued in respect of this breach. The landlord has said that she has had discussion with the tenant who refuses to rehome her cat.
This is an intentional breach but there is no long history of noncompliance with 14-day notices.
There is no question raised about the conduct of the landlord.
The gravity of the breach is hard to assess as no inspection reports were provided or damages by the cat claimed at the hearing.
I find that termination is not the correct response having regard to all the evidence provided in this instance. Only one 14-day notice was issued for the removal of one cat, and this may or may not have been removed by the SPCA. The landlord inspected the premises 13 days after it was issued finding 2 cats but there was no date given for the SPCA intervention, if this was before the 14 day was issued or after.
I find that without a history of persistent breaches, and more supporting evidence termination is not appropriate. The breach is not of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.
I order that the tenant rehome all the cats that she at the premises within 14 days of the date of this hearing. The landlord has the right to file an application with the Tribunal if this order is breached.

Order

The tenant is to rehome all the cats at the premises within 14 days of the date of this notice. The cats are not to be replaced.
The claim for termination is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not appear.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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.
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 tenant has breached their obligations by having cats at the premises. The tenancy agreement states that no pets are allowed. The landlord received a photo of a cat at the premises from the landlord. They noticed a cat in the window as they drove past the premises.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 8 November 2023 reminding the tenant that no pets were allowed at the premises and confirming that a cat was seen at the premises on 8 November 2023.The tenant was given 14 days to remedy this.
The landlord said that she had informed the tenant that she would be returning in 14 days to see if the tenant had remedied the breach. But when she returned to the premises on 21 st November, she found there were 2 cats at the premises.
The landlord was contacted by the SPCA asking to access the premises to help rehome the cats. The landlord contacted the tenant who agreed to let the SPCA have access. A copy of a text was provided from the SPCA states that they were meeting with the tenant to take most of the cats and the kittens.
In determining factors relevant to wether it would be inequitable to refues to terminate a tenancy based on a breach of section 56 RTA, the District Court in Dean Huff v City Central Property Management Limited [2020] NZDC 19229, at paragraph 61, considered, a) The history of the tenancy, b) Whether there has been presistant falings after repeated warnings, c) Whether the history of breaches was such that it was unlikeley the tenant would comply with their future obligations, d) Whether the breach was inadverdent or deliberately committed, e) The conduct of the landlord, f)The gravity of the breach, g) Whether termination is the correct response to the breach.
When applying those considerations to the current claim, the tenancy began in October 2023 and the landlord said that she made it clear at the application stage that there were no pets at the premises. This was endorsed by the tenancy agreement which states n pets. There has been only one 14-day notice issued in respect of this breach. The landlord has said that she has had discussion with the tenant who refuses to rehome her cat.
This is an intentional breach but there is no long history of noncompliance with 14-day notices.
There is no question raised about the conduct of the landlord.
The gravity of the breach is hard to assess as no inspection reports were provided or damages by the cat claimed at the hearing.
I find that termination is not the correct response having regard to all the evidence provided in this instance. Only one 14-day notice was issued for the removal of one cat, and this may or may not have been removed by the SPCA. The landlord inspected the premises 13 days after it was issued finding 2 cats but there was no date given for the SPCA intervention, if this was before the 14 day was issued or after.
I find that without a history of persistent breaches, and more supporting evidence termination is not appropriate. The breach is not of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.
I order that the tenant rehome all the cats that she at the premises within 14 days of the date of this hearing. The landlord has the right to file an application with the Tribunal if this order is breached.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4749569 — 14-day notice at 17 Leslie Road, Tapapa, RD 3, Tirau 3483

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4749569 — 14-day notice at 17 Leslie Road, Tapapa, RD 3, Tirau 3483

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