What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4765799 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4765799?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4765799?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4765799?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10056802-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4765799 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4765799?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4765799?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4765799?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10056802-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4765799 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and the address of the property and identifying details.
The landlord’s claim for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The tenancy agreement dated November 2021 signed by the parties provides that there are to be no pets at the property.
Clause 24 of the tenancy agreement says. Pets - The Tenant agrees not to keep or feed or allow or permit any other person to keep or feed or allow any pet or other animal on or about the Property unless the Landlord agrees otherwise and modifies this agreement in writing to reflect Landlord's permission.
The landlord says that the tenant is keeping a dog at the property.
The landlord issued the tenants with a notice pursuant to section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The Act), on the 23 November 2023 asking the tenant to remove the dog. The tenants have refused to remove the dog. The landlord claims that the tenants are still in breach of their obligations, by keeping a dog and is therefore seeking termination of the tenancy. The law
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 District Court in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management Limited (2020) NZDC 19229 set out the relevant factors for the Tribunal to consider in deciding whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy. Those factors are; • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberate. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. Analysis
The Act is silent on whether tenants in separate residential premises are or are not allowed to keep pets. That means that it is up to the landlord and tenant to make their own agreements about whether pets are allowed at the tenancy. In this instance the parties have agreed in writing in the tenancy agreement that the tenants would not be able to keep a pet.
The tenants were victims of a serious aggravated robbery at their home in March last year. The robbery was random, occurred at the tenant’s home and the tenants and one of their children were threatened with firearm. After the incident the tenants notified the landlord as they wanted to leave the property. Unfortunately, they could not find another place to live. The tenants felt very unsafe at the property, they had sent their children away for a while to live elsewhere. Their preference was definitely to move away from the property. After a couple of months of having no success at finding an alternative property, and still feeling unsafe, they decided to get a guard dog. The tenants tell me that the dog made them feel safer. The dog is an outside dog, it is registered and chained. The tenants are by all accounts good and responsible dog owners.
Furthermore, they did try to seek permission from the owner and property manager to have a dog, they tell me that they do not want to be in breach of their tenancy agreement, but they felt that they had no other choice to allow them to live in their home safely.
Since the tenants have had the dog, it has done some damage to the door from scratching at it. The tenants tell me that they understand that they will be liable for any damage caused by the dog. Decision
I am satisfied that the tenants are in breach of their agreement not to keep a pet, but I am not satisfied under s56(2) that the tenancy should be terminated because of this breach, I say this for the following reasons: a) The dog is outside and whilst it has caused a little damage to the property, the tenants have undertaken to remedy the damage. b) The tenants are otherwise good tenants who have paid their rent on time. c) The breach is not a serious breach, it does not impact the landlord directly and any impact such as damage can be remedied by compensation. d) The tenants are actively trying to find another place to live. Whilst the breach is continuing while they are looking for a property, the tenants will move out as soon as they find alternative accommodation. The landlord can then seek new tenants who don’t have a dog. e) The tenants have been upfront about the fact that there is a dog at the property and have not tried to hide the breach. f) There is a very good reason why the tenants have a dog, and termination of the tenancy would be out of proportion to the gravity of the breach.
The tenants have asked me to record in this decision, that they are actively seeking alternative housing for their family. They are frightened of living in the house and want to move. They tell me they have applied to over 100 homes and are awaiting on many replies today. They have sought assistance from social housing providers to no avail because they are both working. They do not want to be in breach of their tenancy, and do not want to be in dispute with their landlord. Name Suppression.
Because of the safety issues raised in this decision, I have decided to supress the names of both parties and the address of the property.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and the address of the property and identifying details.
The landlord’s claim for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The tenancy agreement dated November 2021 signed by the parties provides that there are to be no pets at the property.
Clause 24 of the tenancy agreement says. Pets - The Tenant agrees not to keep or feed or allow or permit any other person to keep or feed or allow any pet or other animal on or about the Property unless the Landlord agrees otherwise and modifies this agreement in writing to reflect Landlord's permission.
The landlord says that the tenant is keeping a dog at the property.
The landlord issued the tenants with a notice pursuant to section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The Act), on the 23 November 2023 asking the tenant to remove the dog. The tenants have refused to remove the dog. The landlord claims that the tenants are still in breach of their obligations, by keeping a dog and is therefore seeking termination of the tenancy. The law
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 District Court in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management Limited (2020) NZDC 19229 set out the relevant factors for the Tribunal to consider in deciding whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy. Those factors are; • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberate. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. Analysis
The Act is silent on whether tenants in separate residential premises are or are not allowed to keep pets. That means that it is up to the landlord and tenant to make their own agreements about whether pets are allowed at the tenancy. In this instance the parties have agreed in writing in the tenancy agreement that the tenants would not be able to keep a pet.
The tenants were victims of a serious aggravated robbery at their home in March last year. The robbery was random, occurred at the tenant’s home and the tenants and one of their children were threatened with firearm. After the incident the tenants notified the landlord as they wanted to leave the property. Unfortunately, they could not find another place to live. The tenants felt very unsafe at the property, they had sent their children away for a while to live elsewhere. Their preference was definitely to move away from the property. After a couple of months of having no success at finding an alternative property, and still feeling unsafe, they decided to get a guard dog. The tenants tell me that the dog made them feel safer. The dog is an outside dog, it is registered and chained. The tenants are by all accounts good and responsible dog owners.
Furthermore, they did try to seek permission from the owner and property manager to have a dog, they tell me that they do not want to be in breach of their tenancy agreement, but they felt that they had no other choice to allow them to live in their home safely.
Since the tenants have had the dog, it has done some damage to the door from scratching at it. The tenants tell me that they understand that they will be liable for any damage caused by the dog. Decision
I am satisfied that the tenants are in breach of their agreement not to keep a pet, but I am not satisfied under s56(2) that the tenancy should be terminated because of this breach, I say this for the following reasons: a) The dog is outside and whilst it has caused a little damage to the property, the tenants have undertaken to remedy the damage. b) The tenants are otherwise good tenants who have paid their rent on time. c) The breach is not a serious breach, it does not impact the landlord directly and any impact such as damage can be remedied by compensation. d) The tenants are actively trying to find another place to live. Whilst the breach is continuing while they are looking for a property, the tenants will move out as soon as they find alternative accommodation. The landlord can then seek new tenants who don’t have a dog. e) The tenants have been upfront about the fact that there is a dog at the property and have not tried to hide the breach. f) There is a very good reason why the tenants have a dog, and termination of the tenancy would be out of proportion to the gravity of the breach.
The tenants have asked me to record in this decision, that they are actively seeking alternative housing for their family. They are frightened of living in the house and want to move. They tell me they have applied to over 100 homes and are awaiting on many replies today. They have sought assistance from social housing providers to no avail because they are both working. They do not want to be in breach of their tenancy, and do not want to be in dispute with their landlord. Name Suppression.
Because of the safety issues raised in this decision, I have decided to supress the names of both parties and the address of the property.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4765799 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4765799 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions