What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5269260 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 5269260?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5269260?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5269260?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12206846-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5269260 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 5269260?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5269260?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5269260?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12206846-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5269260 — 14-day notice

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 Tenant shall remove their dog from the property within 30 days of the date of these Orders.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for an Order to remove the Tenant’s dog from the property and termination of the tenancy if the Tenant refuses to comply.
The Tenancy began on 8 October 2019. The Tenant paid income related rent.

Has the Tenant breached the Tenancy Agreement?

The landlord submitted the Tenant kept a white bully breed cross huntaway dog on the property without prior approval. The property was on the top level of a three-storey complex and was deemed unsuitable for the dog. Clause 32 of the tenancy agreement prohibits pets without the landlord’s consent.
The landlord reported receiving multiple complaints from neighbours about the dog barking continuously, being let into the stairwell and jumping on residents. The Tenant was subsequently given a pet application by the Landlord to complete and the Tenant never submitted it however the Landlord stated the dog was still considered unsuitable for the complex.
On 3 April 2025, the Landlord gave the Tenant 14-day notice to remove the dog. The Tenant did not comply. The dog remained on the premises as of the hearing date. A photograph of the dog was submitted as evidence.
The Tenant confirmed at the hearing she had not removed the dog. She submitted it was necessary as an emotional support animal. She argued that the building was unsafe, she lacked family support in Auckland, and the building manager had indicated he had no issues with her keeping the dog. The Tenant further asserted that she was never informed of any complaints regarding the dog, the dog did not bark all hours of the night and she was aware of other Tenants who also kept dogs. While she preferred to remain in the property, she refused to remove the dog. The law
The Tribunal may terminate the tenancy on application by landlord or Tenant if it is satisfied that the other party breached the tenancy agreement or the Act; if the breach can be remedied, the applicant gave at least 14 days' written notice to fix it and it was not remedied; and the breach is serious enough that ending the tenancy is fair. Section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the Court identified relevant factors for consideration in determining if it would be inequitable to terminate a tenancy. These factors have been applied by other Tribunal cases and include the following: a) The history of the tenancy b) Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings c) The history of breaches was such it was unlikely the Tenant would comply with their obligations in the future d) Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed e) The conduct of the landlord; f)The gravity of the breach, including any damage caused or likely to be caused; g) If termination is proportionate response to the breach
In Landlord v Tenant [2022] NZTT 4343626, a Tenant had a cat at the property which was prohibited by the tenancy agreement. The Tribunal applied the above factors and held that it would not be inequitable to terminate the tenancy.
In considering the relevant factors, I find that the Tenant has breached clause 32 of the tenancy agreement by keeping a dog on the premises. The breach was deliberate as the Tenant did not seek the Landlord’s consent to have a dog at the property, was aware of the breach from the Landlord’s 14-day notice and engagement by the Landlord yet still refused to remedy the breach up to the day of the hearing. The Landlord acted appropriately by issuing a notice and engaging in discussions with the Tenant.
While the presence of the dog constitutes a breach of contract, I find it does not rise to the level of a serious or unlawful act. There was no evidence presented by the Landlord of damage caused by the dog or corroborated complaints from neighbours regarding excessive noise or the dog’s behaviour. Whilst dogs can cause damage to carpet and walls for example, there was no evidence of this. Additionally, the Landlord was not aware of any other issues they had with the Tenant throughout what has been a nearly six year tenancy. I find the Tenant is likely to comply with their obligations to remove the dog following an Order from the Tribunal or move to alternative accommodation given the Tenants unproblematic tenancy history.
The effect of terminating this tenancy is likely to pose significant hardship for the Tenant, particularly as it may be difficult to secure alternative accommodation with a dog. The Tenant did not produce medical documentation to support a formal need for an emotional support animal but stated that the dog provides emotional support and helps her feel safe in the three-storey complex, which she described as intimidating.
Given the absence of evidence from the Landlord regarding property damage or neighbour complaints, I do not find sufficient grounds for termination under section 56. The gravity of the breach is not serious enough in this instance for termination. The breach however will need to be remedied by the Tenant by removing the dog.
Accordingly, the claim is dismissed. However, the Tenant is required to remove the dog from the property within 30 days of the date of this Order.
As the Tenant has been substantially successful, name suppression is granted to the Tenant.

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 Tenant shall remove their dog from the property within 30 days of the date of these Orders.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for an Order to remove the Tenant’s dog from the property and termination of the tenancy if the Tenant refuses to comply.
The Tenancy began on 8 October 2019. The Tenant paid income related rent.

Has the Tenant breached the Tenancy Agreement?

The landlord submitted the Tenant kept a white bully breed cross huntaway dog on the property without prior approval. The property was on the top level of a three-storey complex and was deemed unsuitable for the dog. Clause 32 of the tenancy agreement prohibits pets without the landlord’s consent.
The landlord reported receiving multiple complaints from neighbours about the dog barking continuously, being let into the stairwell and jumping on residents. The Tenant was subsequently given a pet application by the Landlord to complete and the Tenant never submitted it however the Landlord stated the dog was still considered unsuitable for the complex.
On 3 April 2025, the Landlord gave the Tenant 14-day notice to remove the dog. The Tenant did not comply. The dog remained on the premises as of the hearing date. A photograph of the dog was submitted as evidence.
The Tenant confirmed at the hearing she had not removed the dog. She submitted it was necessary as an emotional support animal. She argued that the building was unsafe, she lacked family support in Auckland, and the building manager had indicated he had no issues with her keeping the dog. The Tenant further asserted that she was never informed of any complaints regarding the dog, the dog did not bark all hours of the night and she was aware of other Tenants who also kept dogs. While she preferred to remain in the property, she refused to remove the dog. The law
The Tribunal may terminate the tenancy on application by landlord or Tenant if it is satisfied that the other party breached the tenancy agreement or the Act; if the breach can be remedied, the applicant gave at least 14 days' written notice to fix it and it was not remedied; and the breach is serious enough that ending the tenancy is fair. Section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the Court identified relevant factors for consideration in determining if it would be inequitable to terminate a tenancy. These factors have been applied by other Tribunal cases and include the following: a) The history of the tenancy b) Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings c) The history of breaches was such it was unlikely the Tenant would comply with their obligations in the future d) Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed e) The conduct of the landlord; f)The gravity of the breach, including any damage caused or likely to be caused; g) If termination is proportionate response to the breach
In Landlord v Tenant [2022] NZTT 4343626, a Tenant had a cat at the property which was prohibited by the tenancy agreement. The Tribunal applied the above factors and held that it would not be inequitable to terminate the tenancy.
In considering the relevant factors, I find that the Tenant has breached clause 32 of the tenancy agreement by keeping a dog on the premises. The breach was deliberate as the Tenant did not seek the Landlord’s consent to have a dog at the property, was aware of the breach from the Landlord’s 14-day notice and engagement by the Landlord yet still refused to remedy the breach up to the day of the hearing. The Landlord acted appropriately by issuing a notice and engaging in discussions with the Tenant.
While the presence of the dog constitutes a breach of contract, I find it does not rise to the level of a serious or unlawful act. There was no evidence presented by the Landlord of damage caused by the dog or corroborated complaints from neighbours regarding excessive noise or the dog’s behaviour. Whilst dogs can cause damage to carpet and walls for example, there was no evidence of this. Additionally, the Landlord was not aware of any other issues they had with the Tenant throughout what has been a nearly six year tenancy. I find the Tenant is likely to comply with their obligations to remove the dog following an Order from the Tribunal or move to alternative accommodation given the Tenants unproblematic tenancy history.
The effect of terminating this tenancy is likely to pose significant hardship for the Tenant, particularly as it may be difficult to secure alternative accommodation with a dog. The Tenant did not produce medical documentation to support a formal need for an emotional support animal but stated that the dog provides emotional support and helps her feel safe in the three-storey complex, which she described as intimidating.
Given the absence of evidence from the Landlord regarding property damage or neighbour complaints, I do not find sufficient grounds for termination under section 56. The gravity of the breach is not serious enough in this instance for termination. The breach however will need to be remedied by the Tenant by removing the dog.
Accordingly, the claim is dismissed. However, the Tenant is required to remove the dog from the property within 30 days of the date of this Order.
As the Tenant has been substantially successful, name suppression is granted to the Tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5269260 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5269260 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the Tenant breached the Tenancy Agreement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the Tenant breached the Tenancy Agreement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions