What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5290999 about?

The tribunal order states: The hearing is adjourned.

How much money was awarded in case 5290999?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5290999?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5290999?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12300042-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5290999 about?

The tribunal order states: The hearing is adjourned.

How much money was awarded in case 5290999?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5290999?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5290999?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12300042-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 9, 11 Wilmshurst Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5290999 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The hearing is adjourned.
The parties are to have one final opportunity to engage with each other, to see if they can agree on the tenants keeping the dog, and what reasonable conditions would go along with that. If the parties have been unable to agree within 28 days, the landlord may request that this hearing be reconvened before myself, and I will schedule a telephone hearing to hear from the parties at that time.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord, seeking an order that the tenants remove a dog on the premises, failing that an order terminating the tenancy.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenants has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.

BACKGROUND

The background in this case is not involved. This is a Tenancy of long duration, commencing around 2015.
The tenancy agreement has the following clause: You are not allowed to keep dogs or other animals at the premises. Permission to keep dogs or other animals at the Tenancy will only be agreed to in exceptional circumstances and will be confirmed by us in writing.
The landlord’s evidence is that within about the last year, they found the tenant had a dog on the premises. The landlord requested that the tenant complete particular paperwork that it uses in these situations, which confirms that the dog would be registered, and to gain other information in relation to the dog. At the hearing today the landlord’s representative explained that one of the reasons they get that information is so that when contractors go to the premises, the landlord knows what sort of dogs might be present.
In any event, the landlord’s evidence is that the tenant would not engage with them over the request to complete that form, the representative understands that is because of privacy reasons.
Because the landlord has been unable to engage with the tenant, an application has been filed with the Tribunal seeking an order that the tenant remove the dog, or failing that, that the tenancy terminate.

LANDLORDS CASE

The landlord states that the tenancy commenced in 2015, and over the last year, the tenant brought a dog onto the premises. The representative states that Kāinga Ora may agree to a tenant having a dog, but only if the property is suitable for that, and the paperwork has been completed.
In this case, the landlord considers the property may be suitable, but they wish to have more information around the dog, and to ensure that the dog is registered. The representative correctly notes that there are council bylaws that apply, in relation to dogs being registered.
As above, the representative reports that the tenants would not engage and have declined to provide the requested information, citing privacy grounds.
At the hearing I asked the representative, if the landlord had any information as to what sort of dog it was. The representative did not know, because they have been unable to see the dog as it remains inside, but given its bark, their impression is that it is a larger dog.
A notice was given to remove the dog, but the tenant has not complied with this.

ANALYSIS

The question the Tribunal must determine is whether there are sufficient grounds to order that the tenant remove the dog, and if they fail to do that, then order termination of the Tenancy.
One of the difficulties that the Tribunal faces in determining this application is that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) is silent in relation to a tenant’s ability to have pets, specifically, or a landlord’s ability to prohibit them. It is largely for that reason, that parliament has recently amended the RTA, but those pet provisions are not in place yet. In short, once those provisions are in place, then there would be an expectation that tenants are able to have pets on their property, unless there are reasonable grounds for the landlord to prohibit them. If those provisions were in place, that would make the matter to be considered much more simple.
However, on the law that currently exists, the usual position is that parties are free to contract on any terms they wish, which means that in this case the parties have contracted that the tenant will not have a pet on the property, without the written permission of the landlord.
There could be no doubt that the tenants have breached that provision in the tenancy agreement. I accept the tenants have a dog on the property based on the evidence provided.
In my assessment, it would not be unreasonable to expect the tenant to engage with the landlord around the keeping of a dog, and or for the landlord to put reasonable expectations around that, on the tenant. Certainly, if this were a case that was determined if the new pet provisions were in place, the landlord would be able to make those conditions, and they would be enforceable.
In this case, I have determined that the appropriate course of action, is to adjourn the hearing, to allow the tenant a final opportunity to engage with the landlord, to see if an agreement can be reached around keeping the dog.
No doubt the landlord would want to know some information, and there would probably be an expectation that the dog was registered for example. If the parties can reach an agreement on those matters, then that would resolve the dispute.
However, if within one month the parties have been unable to agree, then the landlord can apply to the Tribunal for orders at that stage, and I would consider then making an order for the removal of the dog, or potentially the termination of the tenancy. Those would be significant orders to make, and I consider it would be fair in the circumstances to give the tenant one final opportunity to engage with the landlord directly, before the Tribunal would consider making such orders.

Order

The hearing is adjourned.
The parties are to have one final opportunity to engage with each other, to see if they can agree on the tenants keeping the dog, and what reasonable conditions would go along with that. If the parties have been unable to agree within 28 days, the landlord may request that this hearing be reconvened before myself, and I will schedule a telephone hearing to hear from the parties at that time.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord, seeking an order that the tenants remove a dog on the premises, failing that an order terminating the tenancy.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenants has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.

BACKGROUND

The background in this case is not involved. This is a Tenancy of long duration, commencing around 2015.
The tenancy agreement has the following clause: You are not allowed to keep dogs or other animals at the premises. Permission to keep dogs or other animals at the Tenancy will only be agreed to in exceptional circumstances and will be confirmed by us in writing.
The landlord’s evidence is that within about the last year, they found the tenant had a dog on the premises. The landlord requested that the tenant complete particular paperwork that it uses in these situations, which confirms that the dog would be registered, and to gain other information in relation to the dog. At the hearing today the landlord’s representative explained that one of the reasons they get that information is so that when contractors go to the premises, the landlord knows what sort of dogs might be present.
In any event, the landlord’s evidence is that the tenant would not engage with them over the request to complete that form, the representative understands that is because of privacy reasons.
Because the landlord has been unable to engage with the tenant, an application has been filed with the Tribunal seeking an order that the tenant remove the dog, or failing that, that the tenancy terminate.

LANDLORDS CASE

The landlord states that the tenancy commenced in 2015, and over the last year, the tenant brought a dog onto the premises. The representative states that Kāinga Ora may agree to a tenant having a dog, but only if the property is suitable for that, and the paperwork has been completed.
In this case, the landlord considers the property may be suitable, but they wish to have more information around the dog, and to ensure that the dog is registered. The representative correctly notes that there are council bylaws that apply, in relation to dogs being registered.
As above, the representative reports that the tenants would not engage and have declined to provide the requested information, citing privacy grounds.
At the hearing I asked the representative, if the landlord had any information as to what sort of dog it was. The representative did not know, because they have been unable to see the dog as it remains inside, but given its bark, their impression is that it is a larger dog.
A notice was given to remove the dog, but the tenant has not complied with this.

ANALYSIS

The question the Tribunal must determine is whether there are sufficient grounds to order that the tenant remove the dog, and if they fail to do that, then order termination of the Tenancy.
One of the difficulties that the Tribunal faces in determining this application is that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) is silent in relation to a tenant’s ability to have pets, specifically, or a landlord’s ability to prohibit them. It is largely for that reason, that parliament has recently amended the RTA, but those pet provisions are not in place yet. In short, once those provisions are in place, then there would be an expectation that tenants are able to have pets on their property, unless there are reasonable grounds for the landlord to prohibit them. If those provisions were in place, that would make the matter to be considered much more simple.
However, on the law that currently exists, the usual position is that parties are free to contract on any terms they wish, which means that in this case the parties have contracted that the tenant will not have a pet on the property, without the written permission of the landlord.
There could be no doubt that the tenants have breached that provision in the tenancy agreement. I accept the tenants have a dog on the property based on the evidence provided.
In my assessment, it would not be unreasonable to expect the tenant to engage with the landlord around the keeping of a dog, and or for the landlord to put reasonable expectations around that, on the tenant. Certainly, if this were a case that was determined if the new pet provisions were in place, the landlord would be able to make those conditions, and they would be enforceable.
In this case, I have determined that the appropriate course of action, is to adjourn the hearing, to allow the tenant a final opportunity to engage with the landlord, to see if an agreement can be reached around keeping the dog.
No doubt the landlord would want to know some information, and there would probably be an expectation that the dog was registered for example. If the parties can reach an agreement on those matters, then that would resolve the dispute.
However, if within one month the parties have been unable to agree, then the landlord can apply to the Tribunal for orders at that stage, and I would consider then making an order for the removal of the dog, or potentially the termination of the tenancy. Those would be significant orders to make, and I consider it would be fair in the circumstances to give the tenant one final opportunity to engage with the landlord directly, before the Tribunal would consider making such orders.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5290999 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 9, 11 Wilmshurst Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5290999 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 9, 11 Wilmshurst Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CASE

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CASE

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.