What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5281295 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5281295?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5281295?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5281295?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12149983-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5281295 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5281295?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5281295?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5281295?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12149983-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5281295 — 14-day notice

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must remove all dogs from the premises and remove all personal items from shared common areas by 5:00 pm on Friday 15 August 2025.
If [the tenant/s] fails to comply with order 2 (above) within 5 working days of the due date: a. The tenancy at [Tenancy address suppressed] will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises.

Reasons

A hearing was held on 16 July 2025 by teleconference. Both parties attended.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy alleging the tenant has committed breaches of their obligations under the tenancy agreement.

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 (“RTA”).
The tenancy commenced on 5 March 2021. The landlord has applied for a conditional termination order under section 56 on the grounds that the tenant has breached her tenancy agreement by keeping three dogs in her one-bedroom apartment without the landlord’s consent and by failing to remove personal items from the shared common area despite repeated requests.
The property is a one-bedroom apartment located on the top floor of a three- storey walk-up building. The landlord states the apartment is unsuitable for dogs and that complaints have been received from neighbours and the council regarding noise, nuisance, and health and safety concerns.
The tenancy agreement requires the tenant to obtain prior written consent before keeping any pets. The accompanying appendix, “Can I Keep A Pet?”, makes it clear that dogs will only be permitted where Kāinga Ora considers the property suitable, there is no nuisance caused to neighbours, and the tenant complies with all relevant policies and legal requirements.
The landlord received the first complaint about dogs in December 2024. The tenant confirmed at that time that the dogs were “only visiting,” but was reminded that dogs are not permitted without prior consent. In January 2025, Kāinga Ora received further complaints, including reports of dogs roaming in the shared stairwell, leaving faeces, and exhibiting aggressive behaviour. A contractor also reported issues during a maintenance visit.
The landlord asked the tenant to complete a “Request to Keep a Pet” form on 15 January 2025. The tenant failed to submit the form, and a decline letter was issued on 21 January 2025. The letter stated the request was declined because the property is located in an apartment complex unsuitable for dogs.
Despite this, further complaints were received, including allegations of the dogs barking late at night, roaming freely, and causing distress to other tenants. Animal Control also visited the tenant’s property following these complaints, but the tenant refused to co-operate. On 18 February 2025, Kāinga Ora received a report from a neighbour who said their family was chased by the tenant’s dogs and that the dogs were tied up near communal bins.
The landlord issued formal breach notices under section 56 RTA on 7 February 2025 and again on 9 June 2025, requiring the tenant to remove the dogs. These notices were not complied with. Further inspections in March and April confirmed the presence of dogs inside the property, and the home smelled strongly of animals. Conversations were held with the tenant, who advised she wanted a transfer to another property but was advised that Kāinga Ora does not transfer tenants for reasons related to pets and that any transfer would need to be discussed with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD).
The tenant acknowledged her inability to remove or rehome the dogs, citing unsuccessful attempts to secure a private rental and budgetary constraints. While the Tribunal is sympathetic to the tenant’s personal circumstances, these do not excuse compliance with the tenancy agreement or the RTA.
In addition to the pet issue, the tenant has repeatedly failed to remove items stored in shared common areas, creating health and safety risks. A clear letter was issued on 10 January 2025, followed by a section 56 breach notice on 16 May 2025. These directions have not been complied with.
In this case, the landlord has issued valid breach notices under section 56. The notices specified the nature of the breach (keeping unauthorised dogs and failing to remove items from common areas) and allowed a reasonable period for compliance. The tenant has not remedied these breaches.
The evidence demonstrates repeated breaches of the tenancy agreement, including the keeping of three unauthorised dogs in unsuitable accommodation, causing ongoing nuisance and safety concerns for neighbours and contractors. Complaints from neighbours and the Council, corroborated by photographs and contractor reports, support the landlord’s case. The failure to remove items from common areas further compounds the breaches and poses additional safety risks.
The Tribunal acknowledges the tenant’s personal and financial difficulties, including her unsuccessful attempts to secure alternative accommodation. However, Kāinga Ora has taken reasonable steps to support the tenant, including advising her of her options through MSD and granting multiple opportunities to remedy the breach. The tenant has continued to refuse compliance. The landlord is entitled to expect its tenants to comply with tenancy obligations to ensure the safety and amenity of all residents.
I find that the tenant is in breach of her tenancy agreement and the RTA by keeping dogs on the premises without the landlord’s consent and by failing to remove personal items from common areas. The landlord has complied with the requirements of section 56 by issuing breach notices and providing reasonable timeframes for compliance. The breaches remain unremedied and are serious in nature.
The Tribunal grants a conditional termination order under section 56 RTA as follows: a. The tenant must remove all dogs from the premises and remove all personal items from shared common areas by 5:00 pm on Friday 15 August 2025. b. If the tenant fails to comply with this order, the tenancy will terminate immediately, and possession of the premises is granted to Kāinga Ora without the need for further application.
The Tribunal recognises that the tenant has a strong emotional attachment to her dogs and that her personal circumstances have made rehoming difficult. However, these challenges do not override her legal obligations under the tenancy agreement.
The tenant is reminded that failure to comply with this order will result in immediate termination and eviction. The tenant should also ensure that all items stored in common areas are removed by the specified date to avoid further enforcement action.
The tenant is strongly encouraged to prioritise compliance to avoid the distress of eviction and to seek urgent assistance through MSD or animal rehoming services.
The landlord does not seek suppression. However, given the circumstances and to avoid undue hardship to the tenant, I grant suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must remove all dogs from the premises and remove all personal items from shared common areas by 5:00 pm on Friday 15 August 2025.
If [the tenant/s] fails to comply with order 2 (above) within 5 working days of the due date: a. The tenancy at [Tenancy address suppressed] will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises.

Reasons

A hearing was held on 16 July 2025 by teleconference. Both parties attended.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy alleging the tenant has committed breaches of their obligations under the tenancy agreement.

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 (“RTA”).
The tenancy commenced on 5 March 2021. The landlord has applied for a conditional termination order under section 56 on the grounds that the tenant has breached her tenancy agreement by keeping three dogs in her one-bedroom apartment without the landlord’s consent and by failing to remove personal items from the shared common area despite repeated requests.
The property is a one-bedroom apartment located on the top floor of a three- storey walk-up building. The landlord states the apartment is unsuitable for dogs and that complaints have been received from neighbours and the council regarding noise, nuisance, and health and safety concerns.
The tenancy agreement requires the tenant to obtain prior written consent before keeping any pets. The accompanying appendix, “Can I Keep A Pet?”, makes it clear that dogs will only be permitted where Kāinga Ora considers the property suitable, there is no nuisance caused to neighbours, and the tenant complies with all relevant policies and legal requirements.
The landlord received the first complaint about dogs in December 2024. The tenant confirmed at that time that the dogs were “only visiting,” but was reminded that dogs are not permitted without prior consent. In January 2025, Kāinga Ora received further complaints, including reports of dogs roaming in the shared stairwell, leaving faeces, and exhibiting aggressive behaviour. A contractor also reported issues during a maintenance visit.
The landlord asked the tenant to complete a “Request to Keep a Pet” form on 15 January 2025. The tenant failed to submit the form, and a decline letter was issued on 21 January 2025. The letter stated the request was declined because the property is located in an apartment complex unsuitable for dogs.
Despite this, further complaints were received, including allegations of the dogs barking late at night, roaming freely, and causing distress to other tenants. Animal Control also visited the tenant’s property following these complaints, but the tenant refused to co-operate. On 18 February 2025, Kāinga Ora received a report from a neighbour who said their family was chased by the tenant’s dogs and that the dogs were tied up near communal bins.
The landlord issued formal breach notices under section 56 RTA on 7 February 2025 and again on 9 June 2025, requiring the tenant to remove the dogs. These notices were not complied with. Further inspections in March and April confirmed the presence of dogs inside the property, and the home smelled strongly of animals. Conversations were held with the tenant, who advised she wanted a transfer to another property but was advised that Kāinga Ora does not transfer tenants for reasons related to pets and that any transfer would need to be discussed with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD).
The tenant acknowledged her inability to remove or rehome the dogs, citing unsuccessful attempts to secure a private rental and budgetary constraints. While the Tribunal is sympathetic to the tenant’s personal circumstances, these do not excuse compliance with the tenancy agreement or the RTA.
In addition to the pet issue, the tenant has repeatedly failed to remove items stored in shared common areas, creating health and safety risks. A clear letter was issued on 10 January 2025, followed by a section 56 breach notice on 16 May 2025. These directions have not been complied with.
In this case, the landlord has issued valid breach notices under section 56. The notices specified the nature of the breach (keeping unauthorised dogs and failing to remove items from common areas) and allowed a reasonable period for compliance. The tenant has not remedied these breaches.
The evidence demonstrates repeated breaches of the tenancy agreement, including the keeping of three unauthorised dogs in unsuitable accommodation, causing ongoing nuisance and safety concerns for neighbours and contractors. Complaints from neighbours and the Council, corroborated by photographs and contractor reports, support the landlord’s case. The failure to remove items from common areas further compounds the breaches and poses additional safety risks.
The Tribunal acknowledges the tenant’s personal and financial difficulties, including her unsuccessful attempts to secure alternative accommodation. However, Kāinga Ora has taken reasonable steps to support the tenant, including advising her of her options through MSD and granting multiple opportunities to remedy the breach. The tenant has continued to refuse compliance. The landlord is entitled to expect its tenants to comply with tenancy obligations to ensure the safety and amenity of all residents.
I find that the tenant is in breach of her tenancy agreement and the RTA by keeping dogs on the premises without the landlord’s consent and by failing to remove personal items from common areas. The landlord has complied with the requirements of section 56 by issuing breach notices and providing reasonable timeframes for compliance. The breaches remain unremedied and are serious in nature.
The Tribunal grants a conditional termination order under section 56 RTA as follows: a. The tenant must remove all dogs from the premises and remove all personal items from shared common areas by 5:00 pm on Friday 15 August 2025. b. If the tenant fails to comply with this order, the tenancy will terminate immediately, and possession of the premises is granted to Kāinga Ora without the need for further application.
The Tribunal recognises that the tenant has a strong emotional attachment to her dogs and that her personal circumstances have made rehoming difficult. However, these challenges do not override her legal obligations under the tenancy agreement.
The tenant is reminded that failure to comply with this order will result in immediate termination and eviction. The tenant should also ensure that all items stored in common areas are removed by the specified date to avoid further enforcement action.
The tenant is strongly encouraged to prioritise compliance to avoid the distress of eviction and to seek urgent assistance through MSD or animal rehoming services.
The landlord does not seek suppression. However, given the circumstances and to avoid undue hardship to the tenant, I grant suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5281295 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5281295 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions