What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4894700 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 4894700?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4894700?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4894700?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10650178-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4894700 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 4894700?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4894700?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4894700?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10650178-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

67 Union Street, Foxton, Foxton 4814 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4894700 — 14-day notice

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 allowed the tenant to have one dog at the property. The tenant agreed that his dog had a litter of puppies and that he had difficulty in disposing of the last puppy.

The landlord advised that she repeatedly gave the tenant verbal warnings that he was only allowed one dog at the property. Because the tenant failed to act on the landlord’s verbal warnings, the landlord issued a formal notice to the tenant on 7 May 2024 that he was in breach of the terms of the tenancy agreement and had to remove the unauthorised dog from the property.

The landlord provided evidence of the serious inconvenience and distress caused by the tenant’s dogs to the neighbours. The landlord explained that she felt compelled to make this application for termination of the tenancy because the tenant had failed to respond to the landlord’s notice and did not appear to take his responsibilities under the tenancy agreement seriously.

The tenant confirmed that the additional dog has now been removed permanently from the property. He further advised that he had been in discussions with the SPCA and had arranged to have his dog desexed.

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 landlord has served notice on the tenant and the tenant failed to remedy the breach within 14 days. Indeed, it appears that it took him over two months to remove the second dog. In addition, he did not notify the landlord that the dog had been removed.

The landlord has established that the peace and quiet enjoyment of the tenant’s neighbours has been breached by the actions of the tenant’s dogs. The impact on the neighbours has been significant and it is clear that they have justifiably had enough.

The tenant needs to be aware that his failure to act on the landlord’s notice within the 14-day period has seriously risked the Tribunal ending his tenancy. He and his family would then find themselves without a home. This is not a step that the Tribunal takes lightly. It needs to be certain that termination is the appropriate remedy and that it would be unfair to the landlord to refuse to end the tenancy.

The tenant has narrowly avoided his tenancy being terminated today. However, he needs to be aware that he has obligations under his tenancy agreement and that further breaches may result in his tenancy being terminated.

Going forward, the tenant would be well advised to take the concerns of his landlord seriously and deal with any issues promptly.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application 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 allowed the tenant to have one dog at the property. The tenant agreed that his dog had a litter of puppies and that he had difficulty in disposing of the last puppy.
The landlord advised that she repeatedly gave the tenant verbal warnings that he was only allowed one dog at the property. Because the tenant failed to act on the landlord’s verbal warnings, the landlord issued a formal notice to the tenant on 7 May 2024 that he was in breach of the terms of the tenancy agreement and had to remove the unauthorised dog from the property.
The landlord provided evidence of the serious inconvenience and distress caused by the tenant’s dogs to the neighbours. The landlord explained that she felt compelled to make this application for termination of the tenancy because the tenant had failed to respond to the landlord’s notice and did not appear to take his responsibilities under the tenancy agreement seriously.
The tenant confirmed that the additional dog has now been removed permanently from the property. He further advised that he had been in discussions with the SPCA and had arranged to have his dog desexed.
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 landlord has served notice on the tenant and the tenant failed to remedy the breach within 14 days. Indeed, it appears that it took him over two months to remove the second dog. In addition, he did not notify the landlord that the dog had been removed.
The landlord has established that the peace and quiet enjoyment of the tenant’s neighbours has been breached by the actions of the tenant’s dogs. The impact on the neighbours has been significant and it is clear that they have justifiably had enough.
The tenant needs to be aware that his failure to act on the landlord’s notice within the 14-day period has seriously risked the Tribunal ending his tenancy. He and his family would then find themselves without a home. This is not a step that the Tribunal takes lightly. It needs to be certain that termination is the appropriate remedy and that it would be unfair to the landlord to refuse to end the tenancy.
The tenant has narrowly avoided his tenancy being terminated today. However, he needs to be aware that he has obligations under his tenancy agreement and that further breaches may result in his tenancy being terminated.
Going forward, the tenant would be well advised to take the concerns of his landlord seriously and deal with any issues promptly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4894700 — 14-day notice at 67 Union Street, Foxton, Foxton 4814

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4894700 — 14-day notice at 67 Union Street, Foxton, Foxton 4814

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions