What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5290646 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant must remove all dogs from the premises by Monday 15 September

How much money was awarded in case 5290646?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5290646?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5290646?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12315288-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5290646 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant must remove all dogs from the premises by Monday 15 September

How much money was awarded in case 5290646?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5290646?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5290646?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12315288-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Caravelle Close, Mangere, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5290646 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenant must remove all dogs from the premises by Monday 15 September 2025 and ensure that no dogs are kept at the premises without the prior consent of the landlord.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by teleconference.
The landlord seeks an order from the Tribunal requiring the tenant to remove dogs being kept at the premises without the landlord’s consent in breach of the tenancy agreement.
Clause 19 of the tenancy agreement between the parties provides: “You must let us know if you want to keep a pet, including a dog. We will allow you to keep pet(s) on the premises as long as the pet(s) meet the guidelines explained in Appendix ‘Can I keep a Pet’. This forms part of the terms of this agreement.”
The appendix sets out the matters the landlord will take into account before it consents to a pet including: how suitable the home is for a pet; whether the pet is likely to attack any person or other pet; whether it will cause a nuisance to neighbours or damage the premises; and, if the pet is a dog that it is not specified as a dangerous or menacing dog under the Dog Control Act 1996.
The landlord provided evidence not disputed by the tenant that during an inspection on 21 March they discovered there were three dogs, all of Pit Bull Terrier breed, being kept at the property without the landlord’s consent. The tenant did not complete an application for the landlord’s consent to keep the dogs. In any event, the landlord advised that consent was declined because the dogs are menacing by breed under the Dog Control Act 1996. The landlord requested that the tenant remove the dogs but this was not done as the tenant advised she was having difficulty re-homing them.
On 24 April 2025, the landlord issued a breach notice requiring that the tenant have the dogs removed by 13 May 2025. In follow up visits on 13 and 23 May, the dogs had not been removed, resulting in the current application to the Tribunal.
At today’s hearing, the tenant advised that the three Pit Bulls have been removed and there are two new dogs at the premises owned by her niece which are a mixed Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed. She has asked her niece to remove the dogs but to date they are still being kept outside at the premises. The tenant accepts that she does not have the landlords consent for the dogs to be kept at the premises and that they must be removed.
While the dogs may not be owned by the tenant, she is responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would constitute a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant. This would cover the actions of her niece.
I accept on the evidence that the dogs are being kept at the premises without consent and must be removed. Orders are made accordingly pursuant to section 77(2)(m) RTA.
As advised during the hearing, if the tenant does not comply with the Tribunal order, the landlord may have grounds to apply for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations under the tenancy agreement concerning the keeping of pets.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by teleconference.

The landlord seeks an order from the Tribunal requiring the tenant to remove dogs being kept at the premises without the landlord’s consent in breach of the tenancy agreement.

Clause 19 of the tenancy agreement between the parties provides: “You must let us know if you want to keep a pet, including a dog. We will allow you to keep pet(s) on the premises as long as the pet(s) meet the guidelines explained in Appendix ‘Can I keep a Pet’. This forms part of the terms of this agreement.”

The appendix sets out the matters the landlord will take into account before it consents to a pet including: how suitable the home is for a pet; whether the pet is likely to attack any person or other pet; whether it will cause a nuisance to neighbours or damage the premises; and, if the pet is a dog that it is not specified as a dangerous or menacing dog under the Dog Control Act 1996.

The landlord provided evidence not disputed by the tenant that during an inspection on 21 March they discovered there were three dogs, all of Pit Bull Terrier breed, being kept at the property without the landlord’s consent. The tenant did not complete an application for the landlord’s consent to keep the dogs. In any event, the landlord advised that consent was declined because the dogs are menacing by breed under the Dog Control Act 1996. The landlord requested that the tenant remove the dogs but this was not done as the tenant advised she was having difficulty re-homing them.

On 24 April 2025, the landlord issued a breach notice requiring that the tenant have the dogs removed by 13 May 2025. In follow up visits on 13 and 23 May, the dogs had not been removed, resulting in the current application to the Tribunal.

At today’s hearing, the tenant advised that the three Pit Bulls have been removed and there are two new dogs at the premises owned by her niece which are a mixed Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed. She has asked her niece to remove the dogs but to date they are still being kept outside at the premises. The tenant accepts that she does not have the landlords consent for the dogs to be kept at the premises and that they must be removed.

While the dogs may not be owned by the tenant, she is responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would constitute a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant. This would cover the actions of her niece.

I accept on the evidence that the dogs are being kept at the premises without consent and must be removed. Orders are made accordingly pursuant to section 77(2)(m) RTA.

As advised during the hearing, if the tenant does not comply with the Tribunal order, the landlord may have grounds to apply for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations under the tenancy agreement concerning the keeping of pets.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5290646 — Tenancy dispute at 8 Caravelle Close, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5290646 — Tenancy dispute at 8 Caravelle Close, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions