Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5284607 — Unit Titles at Unit 5, 9 Chelburn Crescent, Mangere East, Auckland 2024

Decided 19 Aug 2025 · Published 19 Aug 2025 · Application 5284607

Mixed / unclear

Unit Titles

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Mixed / unclear

From published order

Location

Auckland

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

R Kee

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Order

Rausina Karma Tonitara must remove any dog from the premises and not keep any dog at the premises by Monday 22 September 2025.
Rausina Karma Tonitara must not keep any dog or other animal at the premises after 22 September 2025 without Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities’ prior consent.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted on Microsoft Teams by telephone.
Daniel Campbell attended the hearing for Kāinga Ora.
The tenant did not attend. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
This hearing concerns whether the Tribunal should issue an order that the tenant remove a medium-sized dog from the premises.
The premises is a small, terraced unit. It has a small back yard. The yard contains a clothesline, small deck, a garden shed and a few plants. There is not animal flap.
There is a photo of the dog. However, I cannot see what breed or breeds it has in it. I would hazard a guess that it is part Staffordshire Bull Terrier. It looks friendly and fit and healthy in the picture, and probably energetic. There is no evidence that the dog has been aggressive or caused problems with the neighbours.
Kāinga Ora has a pet policy that it inserted into the tenancy agreement. The policy states: Keeping a Pet 32 You must notify Kainga Ora of your intention to keep a pet, including a dog. We will allow you to keep pet(s) on the premises so long as: •Kainga Ora considers your property is suitable for keeping a pet and •the pet is not a health or safety risk to staff, contractors or others and •the dog is not a specified dangerous or menacing dog under the Dog Control Act 1996 and •you or the pet owner are not a prohibited or disqualified pet owner under the Dog Control Act 1996 or the Animal Welfare Act 1999 and •the pet is not likely to, or does not, attack any person or other pet and •the pet is not likely to, or does not, cause a nuisance to your neighbours and •the pet is not likely to, or does not, damage the premises and •you comply with: othe Kainga Ora policy for pets, updated from time to time and available on the Kainga Ora website and oall your legal responsibilities attaching to pet ownership including any applicable local council bylaws, body corporate rules and other relevant legislation and •you secure the pet when Kainga Ora staff or contractors visit your premises
Kāinga Ora considers the property is unsuitable for keeping the dog because it is a relatively large dog, and the premises is small.
Kāinga Ora gave the tenant the opportunity to provide information in response to its policy, such as whether the dog was specified as menacing under the Dog Control Act 1996, whether it was likely to damage the premises, and whether the tenant had complied with bylaws for registration and desexing for example.
Kāinga Ora has issued the tenant with a 14-day notice to remove the dog. However, the tenant has not complied with the notice.
Kāinga Ora’s pet policy appears reasonable. I have not heard expert evidence of whether the premises is suitable for this particular dog. However, Kāinga Ora has practical experience is assessing such matters, so I do not dismiss their assessment as unreasonable.
Further, the tenant has not provided any contrary evidence or submissions. Nor has the tenant produced any evidence of compliance with the other policy factors. That raises a possible adverse inference that the tenant does not comply with one or more other factors.
In the circumstances, it is appropriate to grant the order Kāinga Ora seeks.
The tenant must remove the dog.
If the tenant were to want to keep a dog or other animal in future, they must obtain Kāinga Ora’s consent (which Kāinga Ora must not unreasonably withhold). If the tenant were to seek consent, the tenant must supply Kāinga Ora with details that fully answer the factors set out in Kāinga Ora’s policy for tenants keeping pets.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Unit Titles Auckland

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Dispute theme: unit titles

Property management

Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities (applicant)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5284607?

The tribunal order states: Rausina Karma Tonitara must remove any dog from the premises and not

How much money was awarded in case 5284607?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5284607?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5284607?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12285155-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted on Microsoft Teams by telephone.

Daniel Campbell attended the hearing for Kāinga Ora.

The tenant did not attend. The hearing proceeded in their absence.

This hearing concerns whether the Tribunal should issue an order that the tenant remove a medium-sized dog from the premises.

The premises is a small, terraced unit. It has a small back yard. The yard contains a clothesline, small deck, a garden shed and a few plants. There is not animal flap.

There is a photo of the dog. However, I cannot see what breed or breeds it has in it. I would hazard a guess that it is part Staffordshire Bull Terrier. It looks friendly and fit and healthy in the picture, and probably energetic. There is no evidence that the dog has been aggressive or caused problems with the neighbours.

Kāinga Ora has a pet policy that it inserted into the tenancy agreement. The policy states: Keeping a Pet 32 You must notify Kainga Ora of your intention to keep a pet, including a dog. We will allow you to keep pet(s) on the premises so long as: •Kainga Ora considers your property is suitable for keeping a pet and •the pet is not a health or safety risk to staff, contractors or others and •the dog is not a specified dangerous or menacing dog under the Dog Control Act 1996 and •you or the pet owner are not a prohibited or disqualified pet owner under the Dog Control Act 1996 or the Animal Welfare Act 1999 and •the pet is not likely to, or does not, attack any person or other pet and •the pet is not likely to, or does not, cause a nuisance to your neighbours and •the pet is not likely to, or does not, damage the premises and •you comply with: othe Kainga Ora policy for pets, updated from time to time and available on the Kainga Ora website and oall your legal responsibilities attaching to pet ownership including any applicable local council bylaws, body corporate rules and other relevant legislation and •you secure the pet when Kainga Ora staff or contractors visit your premises

Kāinga Ora considers the property is unsuitable for keeping the dog because it is a relatively large dog, and the premises is small.

Kāinga Ora gave the tenant the opportunity to provide information in response to its policy, such as whether the dog was specified as menacing under the Dog Control Act 1996, whether it was likely to damage the premises, and whether the tenant had complied with bylaws for registration and desexing for example.

Kāinga Ora has issued the tenant with a 14-day notice to remove the dog. However, the tenant has not complied with the notice.

Kāinga Ora’s pet policy appears reasonable. I have not heard expert evidence of whether the premises is suitable for this particular dog. However, Kāinga Ora has practical experience is assessing such matters, so I do not dismiss their assessment as unreasonable.

Further, the tenant has not provided any contrary evidence or submissions. Nor has the tenant produced any evidence of compliance with the other policy factors. That raises a possible adverse inference that the tenant does not comply with one or more other factors.

In the circumstances, it is appropriate to grant the order Kāinga Ora seeks.

The tenant must remove the dog.

If the tenant were to want to keep a dog or other animal in future, they must obtain Kāinga Ora’s consent (which Kāinga Ora must not unreasonably withhold). If the tenant were to seek consent, the tenant must supply Kāinga Ora with details that fully answer the factors set out in Kāinga Ora’s policy for tenants keeping pets.