How much money was awarded in case 5281200?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5281200?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5281200?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12195880-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5281200?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5281200?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5281200?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12195880-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 6 Warre Street, Waitara, Waitara 4320 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5281200 — 14-day notice

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5281200?

The tribunal order states: The tenant must rehouse all pets currently living at the premises by 5:00 pm on

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

The tenant must rehouse all pets currently living at the premises by 5:00 pm on Thursday 14 August 2025.

If the tenant fails to comply with Order 1 above, then the tenancy of Shiloh Gad Greenaway at Unit/Flat 3, 6 Warre Street, Waitara, Waitara 4320 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 5:00 pm on Thursday 28 August 2025.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing via teleconference. The tenant did not.

Attempts were made to contact the tenant on the number provided by the tenant. That connected to the tenant’s father. The tenant’s father was able to provide an updated phone number for the tenant. A female answered the new number and she said that she was going to hand the phone over to the tenant in 2 minutes. After 2 minutes, several attempts were made to talk to the tenant, but the calls went unanswered. Therefore, the teleconference hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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 tenant has breached their obligations by having pets. Specifically, the tenant had a dog and a cat.

The landlord had previously served 14-day notices for removal of the tenant’s pets. The tenant was taken to the Tribunal but that dog had died and the tenancy was able to continue.

Since then, the tenant had got a new dog at the premises.

The landlord served a new 14-day notice on the tenant on 7 May 2025, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because of the tenant’s persistent refusal comply with the tenancy agreement by having pets.

There were complaints by the neighbours due to the presence of the dog and its size.

However, the landlord was open to a work order for removal of the dog before the tenancy being terminated.

Therefore, I order the tenant to remove all pets from the premises within 14 calendar days of this order.

Although this is a work order, I do not make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance as there is no alternative monetary amounts that are suitable.

If the tenant is unable to comply with the work order by removing the pets within 14 calendar days, the tenancy will be terminated at 5:00 pm on Thursday 28 August 2025.

Order

The tenant must rehouse all pets currently living at the premises by 5:00 pm on Thursday 14 August 2025.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing via teleconference. The tenant did not.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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.

The tenant has breached their obligations by having pets. Specifically, the tenant had a dog and a cat.

The landlord had previously served 14-day notices for removal of the tenant’s pets. The tenant was taken to the Tribunal but that dog had died and the tenancy was able to continue.

Since then, the tenant had got a new dog at the premises.

The landlord served a new 14-day notice on the tenant on 7 May 2025, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because of the tenant’s persistent refusal comply with the tenancy agreement by having pets.

There were complaints by the neighbours due to the presence of the dog and its size.

However, the landlord was open to a work order for removal of the dog before the tenancy being terminated.

Therefore, I order the tenant to remove all pets from the premises within 14 calendar days of this order.

Although this is a work order, I do not make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance as there is no alternative monetary amounts that are suitable.

If the tenant is unable to comply with the work order by removing the pets within 14 calendar days, the tenancy will be terminated at 5:00 pm on Thursday 28 August 2025.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5281200 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 3, 6 Warre Street, Waitara, Waitara 4320

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5281200 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 3, 6 Warre Street, Waitara, Waitara 4320

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions