What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5184431?

The tribunal order states: Eva Ioane must permanently remove the dog from the premises at 7 Shirley

How much money was awarded in case 5184431?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5184431?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5184431?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11752643-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5184431?

The tribunal order states: Eva Ioane must permanently remove the dog from the premises at 7 Shirley

How much money was awarded in case 5184431?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5184431?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5184431?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11752643-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 Shirley Day Lane, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5184431 — 14-day notice

Order

Eva Ioane must permanently remove the dog from the premises at 7 Shirley Day Lane, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 by Monday 12 May 2025.
If the tenant fails to permanently remove the dog within 2 working days of the due date, the tenancy at 7 Shirley Lane, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 will terminate, and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was assisted by her daughter, Treasure Ioane.
The landlord has applied for conditional termination of the tenancy because the tenant has a dog living at the premises. The premises is located along a shared driveway with 17 other Kāinga Ora properties. The landlord wants the dog to be removed within 7 days otherwise the tenancy terminates.
The tenant says the dog is not aggressive, there are no issues whatsoever, and he is a good guard dog.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

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. 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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant breached their obligations by having a dog at the premises and disturbing neighbours. On 10 June 2024, 23 August 2024, and 6 January 2025, the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant, but the breach was not remedied within the required period. The landlord has received multiple complaints from multiple neighbours of the dog roaming freely, defecating on neighbours’ lawns, chasing and attacking children causing injury, and continuous barking.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy as the tenant is in breach of their tenancy agreement, and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord will allow a pet so long as the pet is not health and safety risk and it is not likely to, or does not, attack any person, or cause nuisance to neighbours. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the dog has attacked children which poses an ongoing serious health and safety risk. I also find that the dog has caused nuisance to neighbours by continuous barking, defecating on their lawns, and aggressive behaviour.
In accordance with section 40(2)(c) RTA, the tenant must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
The tenant’s dog appears to be a large pit-bull/mastiff type, and it has behaved aggressively towards the landlord at a recent inspection. On the tenant’s own evidence, she agrees her dog has been getting ‘angry’ at the landlord. The landlord has also provided a recent video of the dog chasing children down the shared driveway. This demonstrates to me that the dog is not being kept under control at all times as is required by the Dog Control Act 1996. I share the landlord’s concerns about the safety of children living in the vicinity.
Despite my finding that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, I find that the tenant should be given one final chance to permanently remove the dog rather than losing her home. I have granted a conditional termination. See section 78(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. However, instead of the 7 day period requested by the landlord, I will allow 14 days for the tenant to find another home for her dog.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order is enforceable for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Order

Eva Ioane must permanently remove the dog from the premises at 7 Shirley Day Lane, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 by Monday 12 May 2025.
If the tenant fails to permanently remove the dog within 2 working days of the due date, the tenancy at 7 Shirley Lane, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 will terminate, and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was assisted by her daughter, Treasure Ioane.
The landlord has applied for conditional termination of the tenancy because the tenant has a dog living at the premises. The premises is located along a shared driveway with 17 other Kāinga Ora properties. The landlord wants the dog to be removed within 7 days otherwise the tenancy terminates.
The tenant says the dog is not aggressive, there are no issues whatsoever, and he is a good guard dog.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

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. 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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant breached their obligations by having a dog at the premises and disturbing neighbours. On 10 June 2024, 23 August 2024, and 6 January 2025, the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant, but the breach was not remedied within the required period. The landlord has received multiple complaints from multiple neighbours of the dog roaming freely, defecating on neighbours’ lawns, chasing and attacking children causing injury, and continuous barking.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy as the tenant is in breach of their tenancy agreement, and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord will allow a pet so long as the pet is not health and safety risk and it is not likely to, or does not, attack any person, or cause nuisance to neighbours. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the dog has attacked children which poses an ongoing serious health and safety risk. I also find that the dog has caused nuisance to neighbours by continuous barking, defecating on their lawns, and aggressive behaviour.
In accordance with section 40(2)(c) RTA, the tenant must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
The tenant’s dog appears to be a large pit-bull/mastiff type, and it has behaved aggressively towards the landlord at a recent inspection. On the tenant’s own evidence, she agrees her dog has been getting ‘angry’ at the landlord. The landlord has also provided a recent video of the dog chasing children down the shared driveway. This demonstrates to me that the dog is not being kept under control at all times as is required by the Dog Control Act 1996. I share the landlord’s concerns about the safety of children living in the vicinity.
Despite my finding that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, I find that the tenant should be given one final chance to permanently remove the dog rather than losing her home. I have granted a conditional termination. See section 78(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. However, instead of the 7 day period requested by the landlord, I will allow 14 days for the tenant to find another home for her dog.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order is enforceable for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5184431 — 14-day notice at 7 Shirley Day Lane, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5184431 — 14-day notice at 7 Shirley Day Lane, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions