What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5017188 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tenant shall remove all excess dogs from the property within 10 days of this

How much money was awarded in case 5017188?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5017188?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5017188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11123536-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5017188 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tenant shall remove all excess dogs from the property within 10 days of this

How much money was awarded in case 5017188?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5017188?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5017188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11123536-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 14 Norman Street, Nawton, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5017188 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing by telephone. The Tenant did not answer the telephone calls made by the Tribunal.

The Landlord applied for the Tenant to remove the extra dogs which were reported to live at the property.

The Landlord submitted the Tenant was permitted to have one dog on the property. The Tenant subsequently applied to have more than one dog at the property but the Landlord declined on 19 April 2024 as there was extensive damage caused by the current dog.

The Landlord also submitted the size of the property was not suitable for more than one dog. There were four other units that were in close proximity from the Tenants property and the Landlord had received multiple complaints from neighbours due to the dogs barking, the neighbours sleep being disrupted from the excessive noise and the unsafe environment they were creating.

The landlord provided an inspection report which showed they had visited the property on 12 November 2024 and observed three dogs. There was also a photograph provided of three dogs in the backyard.

On 30 April 2024, Animal Control and the Landlord addressed the Tenant regarding the breach of the tenancy agreement due to the presence of excess dogs. The Tenant agreed to remove the dogs by 1 May 2024, stating that the dogs belonged to someone else and he was waiting for them to collect them. However, this did not occur. Two Section 56 notices were also issued to the Tenant, on 16 April 2024 and 29 July 2024. The property now has a strong odour of dog urine, and there is damage to the fence, caused by frustrated neighbours who have reportedly kicked the dogs in response to the continuous barking.

The Landlord has attempted to work with the Tenant to remove the dogs by visiting the property 11 times and calling them twice in respect of this issue. The Tenant did not comply.

The Tenancy Agreement provides at Appendix C that a Tenant is permitted to have a dog at the property provided they comply with the by-laws and Landlord policy in relation to pets. The Law

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 permits Landlords to refuse a pet from living at the property.

In considering the evidence, I am satisfied that the Landlord has proved that there are excess dogs being present at the property. The inspection report, correspondence and photographs filed were persuasive.

The Tenant is ordered to remove the excess dogs from the property within 10 days of these Orders.

The Landlord has not sought name suppression so this has not been granted.

Reasons