What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5120168?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5120168?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5120168?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5120168?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11790218-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5120168?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5120168?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5120168?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5120168?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11790218-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 6 Warre Street, Waitara, Waitara 4320 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5120168 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the rehearing via remote teleconference.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The landlord claims that the tenant has breached his obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act. The landlord further claims that the tenant has breached his obligations pursuant to clauses 17 and 32 of the Tenancy Agreement dated 18 July 2018.
Before I address the specific claims, I will summarise some general legal principles that apply.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
The landlord is seeking immediate termination and possession under s56 Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”) pursuant to the 14-day notice which was served on the tenant on 8 August 2024.
The landlord also relies on clauses 17 and 32 of the Tenancy Agreement. The landlord says that there is nothing in writing granting permission for the keeping of a dog.
The landlord says that the 14-day notice issued on 8 August 2024 has not been remedied.
An inspection took place on 12 November 2024 and the dog remained at the property.
The landlord says that the tenant said at that time that the dog was just visiting. The landlord says that they have received multiple complaints from neighbours in respect of the dog.
On 4 August 2024 a neighbour had a visitor who was exiting their property when the tenant’s dog came running out barking and ran up to the visitor displaying threatening behaviour. The tenant came out to retrieve the dog.
On 8 August 2024 the landlord’s staff visited the property and on arrival noticed several piles of dog faeces on the driveway and on top of the drain.
The landlord’s staff visited the property on 12 November 2024 and observed the dog still present. The landlord received multiple complaints from neighbours in respect of the tenant’s dog.
The tenant confirmed during the hearing that the dog has since passed away. The landlord also confirmed during the hearing that they accept this.
The landlord claims that the tenant now has a new dog. The landlord says that the new dog was brought to their attention shortly after the rehearing was granted.
The tenant maintained throughout the hearing that he does not have a new dog and has not had a dog since the last dog passed away. The tenant says that the previous dog passed away between one and two months ago. The landlord states that there is video evidence of a new dog.

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 landlord claims that the tenant has breached their obligations by keeping a dog on the property.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 8 August 2024 and says the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
This is a rehearing and as such the application starts from the beginning as if the first hearing never happened.
The landlord accepts that the tenant’s original dog has passed away and is no longer at the property.
There is no evidence before me of a new dog and introducing new evidence in any event would be inappropriate for a rehearing.
While I am satisfied that the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required time, the absence of the now-deceased dog means I find that it would be unjust to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord’s application is dismissed. Observation:
The tenant should be under no illusion that if he were to acquire a new dog at his tenancy address of 3/6 Warre Street, Waitara then it is highly likely the landlord would serve a new breach notice and file a new application with the Tribunal for immediate termination.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the rehearing via remote teleconference.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The landlord claims that the tenant has breached his obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act. The landlord further claims that the tenant has breached his obligations pursuant to clauses 17 and 32 of the Tenancy Agreement dated 18 July 2018.
Before I address the specific claims, I will summarise some general legal principles that apply.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
The landlord is seeking immediate termination and possession under s56 Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”) pursuant to the 14-day notice which was served on the tenant on 8 August 2024.
The landlord also relies on clauses 17 and 32 of the Tenancy Agreement. The landlord says that there is nothing in writing granting permission for the keeping of a dog.
The landlord says that the 14-day notice issued on 8 August 2024 has not been remedied.
An inspection took place on 12 November 2024 and the dog remained at the property.
The landlord says that the tenant said at that time that the dog was just visiting. The landlord says that they have received multiple complaints from neighbours in respect of the dog.
On 4 August 2024 a neighbour had a visitor who was exiting their property when the tenant’s dog came running out barking and ran up to the visitor displaying threatening behaviour. The tenant came out to retrieve the dog.
On 8 August 2024 the landlord’s staff visited the property and on arrival noticed several piles of dog faeces on the driveway and on top of the drain.
The landlord’s staff visited the property on 12 November 2024 and observed the dog still present. The landlord received multiple complaints from neighbours in respect of the tenant’s dog.
The tenant confirmed during the hearing that the dog has since passed away. The landlord also confirmed during the hearing that they accept this.
The landlord claims that the tenant now has a new dog. The landlord says that the new dog was brought to their attention shortly after the rehearing was granted.
The tenant maintained throughout the hearing that he does not have a new dog and has not had a dog since the last dog passed away. The tenant says that the previous dog passed away between one and two months ago. The landlord states that there is video evidence of a new dog.

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 landlord claims that the tenant has breached their obligations by keeping a dog on the property.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 8 August 2024 and says the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
This is a rehearing and as such the application starts from the beginning as if the first hearing never happened.
The landlord accepts that the tenant’s original dog has passed away and is no longer at the property.
There is no evidence before me of a new dog and introducing new evidence in any event would be inappropriate for a rehearing.
While I am satisfied that the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required time, the absence of the now-deceased dog means I find that it would be unjust to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord’s application is dismissed. Observation:
The tenant should be under no illusion that if he were to acquire a new dog at his tenancy address of 3/6 Warre Street, Waitara then it is highly likely the landlord would serve a new breach notice and file a new application with the Tribunal for immediate termination.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5120168 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 3, 6 Warre Street, Waitara, Waitara 4320

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5120168 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 3, 6 Warre Street, Waitara, Waitara 4320

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions