What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5269900 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5269900?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5269900?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5269900?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12281554-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5269900 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5269900?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5269900?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5269900?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12281554-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5269900 — 14-day notice

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms New and Ms Winder represented the landlord.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, specifically that pets are not allowed in the property. The relevant condition of the agreement is as follows:

The condition is for the reason that the property is inappropriate for pets, including visiting pets. The landlord is a social housing provider who leases the property from the owner who has specifically required such a condition.

The landlord had previously made a similar application that they withdrew at hearing in April 2025 when [the tenant]] gave evidence that he had removed the dog and would no longer have a dog at the property.

However, since the last hearing the landlord understood that [the tenant] had breached the agreement again, specifically: a. When he was away for a month, he had a house sitter who had a dog live at the property with them. b. A friend visited with the dog. c. Neighbours told the landlord that they heard a dog barking from the apartment.

[The tenant] agrees that a dog has been at the property on two occasions since the last hearing. He says that he was unaware his house sitter had a dog when he agreed for them to move in whilst he was away. When he was made aware of the situation, he arranged for the house sitter to remove the dog. He also agrees a friend visited the property with a dog but says they were only there for a couple of hours.

[The tenant] is clear that he does not have a pet and will not breach the tenancy agreement again. He understands why the property is inappropriate for pets and agrees to abide by the condition going forward. He apologises for the recent breaches.

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 (RTA).

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 tenant] has breached his obligations by allowing dogs into the property on several occasions. The landlord has served several 14-day notices on [the tenant] requiring him to remove the pets from the property.

However, I am satisfied that [the tenant] has complied with the 14-day notices by ensuring the offending animals are removed. Both animals were only at the property temporarily and were most certainly removed by the expiry of the 14- day notice period. The evidence is that [the tenant] does not currently have a dog living at the property with him.

I also accept [the tenant]’s evidence that he has no intention of breaching the condition of the tenancy agreement again.

Accordingly, the application to terminate the tenancy is dismissed.

However, should the landlord have to make a third application to terminate the tenancy for breach of this condition, and can provide sufficient evidence that the breach is ongoing and has been unremedied, it is likely that the Tribunal will take a different approach to mine today. The Tribunal would at that time also consider the lawfulness of the clause in their consideration.

As [the tenant] has successfully defended the application, pursuant to section 96A of the RTA I direct that his identifying details be suppressed from the published order.

Order

The application is dismissed.
All tenant identifying details are suppressed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms New and Ms Winder represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, specifically that pets are not allowed in the property. The relevant condition of the agreement is as follows:
The condition is for the reason that the property is inappropriate for pets, including visiting pets. The landlord is a social housing provider who leases the property from the owner who has specifically required such a condition.
The landlord had previously made a similar application that they withdrew at hearing in April 2025 when [the tenant]] gave evidence that he had removed the dog and would no longer have a dog at the property.
However, since the last hearing the landlord understood that [the tenant] had breached the agreement again, specifically: a. When he was away for a month, he had a house sitter who had a dog live at the property with them. b. A friend visited with the dog. c. Neighbours told the landlord that they heard a dog barking from the apartment.
[The tenant] agrees that a dog has been at the property on two occasions since the last hearing. He says that he was unaware his house sitter had a dog when he agreed for them to move in whilst he was away. When he was made aware of the situation, he arranged for the house sitter to remove the dog. He also agrees a friend visited the property with a dog but says they were only there for a couple of hours.
[The tenant] is clear that he does not have a pet and will not breach the tenancy agreement again. He understands why the property is inappropriate for pets and agrees to abide by the condition going forward. He apologises for the recent breaches.

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 (RTA).
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 tenant] has breached his obligations by allowing dogs into the property on several occasions. The landlord has served several 14-day notices on [the tenant] requiring him to remove the pets from the property.
However, I am satisfied that [the tenant] has complied with the 14-day notices by ensuring the offending animals are removed. Both animals were only at the property temporarily and were most certainly removed by the expiry of the 14- day notice period. The evidence is that [the tenant] does not currently have a dog living at the property with him.
I also accept [the tenant]’s evidence that he has no intention of breaching the condition of the tenancy agreement again.
Accordingly, the application to terminate the tenancy is dismissed.
However, should the landlord have to make a third application to terminate the tenancy for breach of this condition, and can provide sufficient evidence that the breach is ongoing and has been unremedied, it is likely that the Tribunal will take a different approach to mine today. The Tribunal would at that time also consider the lawfulness of the clause in their consideration.
As [the tenant] has successfully defended the application, pursuant to section 96A of the RTA I direct that his identifying details be suppressed from the published order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5269900 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5269900 — 14-day notice

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