What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5322444 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] is to permanently remove the tan and white American Pit Bull Terrier

How much money was awarded in case 5322444?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5322444?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5322444?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12530500-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5322444 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] is to permanently remove the tan and white American Pit Bull Terrier

How much money was awarded in case 5322444?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5322444?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5322444?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12530500-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7D Roberts Street, Tawa, Wellington 5028 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5322444 — 14-day notice

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] is to permanently remove the tan and white American Pit Bull Terrier named Mischeif (hereafter ‘the dog’) from 7D Roberts Street, Tawa, Wellington 5028 by Wednesday, 29 October 2025.
If the dog is not removed from the premises by that date, the tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at 7D Roberts Street, Tawa, Wellington 5028 will be terminated and possession granted to Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership, at 5pm on 30 October 2025.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership $28.00 immediately, being the filing fee for the application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for an order requiring the tenant to remove the second dog he has been looking after at the property. Failing compliance with that order, the landlord has requested that the tenancy be terminated. The tenant believes that he should be able to keep the dog so he can socialize it and avoid it possibly being euthanized.
The tenant said that he began looking after the dog when the previous owner did not control it and it became a problem for the neighbourhood. It has become a pet. The tenant does not dispute that the dog has been classified as a ‘menacing dog’ by the Porirua City Council but believes he can control the dog and avoid a repeat of incidents where the dog has escaped from a lead and become a danger to people. Nor does the tenant dispute that he has been classified as a probationary owner under section 21 of the Dog Control Act 1996 by the Porirua City Council because there have been three or more infringement offences committed by him in the control of the dog within 24 months.
The landlord is concerned that the dog presents a danger to its other tenants who live in close proximity to the tenant’s premises. Other tenants are fearful. The landlord has made the application to the Tribunal in part because of the obligation of a landlord under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). Section 45(1)(e) of the Act provides that the landlord, “must take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises”. The landlord believes the presence of a ‘menacing dog’ is interfering with the peace and comfort of the landlord’s other tenants and this application is a reasonable step to stop that interference.
I have considered all the evidence presented and am satisfied that while the tenant believes there will be no further incidents that will breach the Dog Control Act and cause concern for other tenants, the risk remains at all times. It is unsatisfactory to have a menacing dog in any community where people are living in close proximity. A menacing dog presents a danger that other residents are fearful of, whether it’s muzzled and under control or not.
The tenant is well intentioned regarding the dog. I understand that he has bonded with it and is worried that the dog will be euthanized if he can’t get anyone to look after it. However the dog does take second place to the needs of residents and therefore the dog must be homed elsewhere.
The landlord has pointed out that the tenant is in breach of his tenancy agreement. The agreement provides at clause 32 that a tenant is not allowed to keep dogs at the premises. However there has been some flexibility. The landlord has allowed the tenant to keep one dog at the premises.
The Tribunal will not always order the removal of a dog simply on the grounds that a tenancy agreement states ‘no dogs’. The tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises must be taken into account. The Tribunal evaluates the circumstances in each case and if the dog does not present a danger or nuisance to other residents and is not damaging the property, it is likely that the Tribunal will not order the removal of the dog.
In the present case the additional dog that the tenant has chosen to adopt is of a type that is unsuitable for the tenant community and must be removed by the tenant.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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 landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 29 July 2025 regarding the dog, but the dog remains at the premises.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because if the tenant chooses to keep the dog, the removal of the risk to the landlord’s other tenants can only be achieved by both the tenant and the dog ending their occupation of 7D Roberts Street, Tawa.
For these reasons, the tenant must either remove the dog or leave the tenancy. Filing fee
Because the landlord has been successful with the claim the filing fee of $28.00 is ordered to be paid by the tenant.

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] is to permanently remove the tan and white American Pit Bull Terrier named Mischeif (hereafter ‘the dog’) from 7D Roberts Street, Tawa, Wellington 5028 by Wednesday, 29 October 2025.
If the dog is not removed from the premises by that date, the tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at 7D Roberts Street, Tawa, Wellington 5028 will be terminated and possession granted to Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership, at 5pm on 30 October 2025.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Te Ahuru Mowai Limited Partnership $28.00 immediately, being the filing fee for the application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for an order requiring the tenant to remove the second dog he has been looking after at the property. Failing compliance with that order, the landlord has requested that the tenancy be terminated. The tenant believes that he should be able to keep the dog so he can socialize it and avoid it possibly being euthanized.
The tenant said that he began looking after the dog when the previous owner did not control it and it became a problem for the neighbourhood. It has become a pet. The tenant does not dispute that the dog has been classified as a ‘menacing dog’ by the Porirua City Council but believes he can control the dog and avoid a repeat of incidents where the dog has escaped from a lead and become a danger to people. Nor does the tenant dispute that he has been classified as a probationary owner under section 21 of the Dog Control Act 1996 by the Porirua City Council because there have been three or more infringement offences committed by him in the control of the dog within 24 months.
The landlord is concerned that the dog presents a danger to its other tenants who live in close proximity to the tenant’s premises. Other tenants are fearful. The landlord has made the application to the Tribunal in part because of the obligation of a landlord under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). Section 45(1)(e) of the Act provides that the landlord, “must take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises”. The landlord believes the presence of a ‘menacing dog’ is interfering with the peace and comfort of the landlord’s other tenants and this application is a reasonable step to stop that interference.
I have considered all the evidence presented and am satisfied that while the tenant believes there will be no further incidents that will breach the Dog Control Act and cause concern for other tenants, the risk remains at all times. It is unsatisfactory to have a menacing dog in any community where people are living in close proximity. A menacing dog presents a danger that other residents are fearful of, whether it’s muzzled and under control or not.
The tenant is well intentioned regarding the dog. I understand that he has bonded with it and is worried that the dog will be euthanized if he can’t get anyone to look after it. However the dog does take second place to the needs of residents and therefore the dog must be homed elsewhere.
The landlord has pointed out that the tenant is in breach of his tenancy agreement. The agreement provides at clause 32 that a tenant is not allowed to keep dogs at the premises. However there has been some flexibility. The landlord has allowed the tenant to keep one dog at the premises.
The Tribunal will not always order the removal of a dog simply on the grounds that a tenancy agreement states ‘no dogs’. The tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises must be taken into account. The Tribunal evaluates the circumstances in each case and if the dog does not present a danger or nuisance to other residents and is not damaging the property, it is likely that the Tribunal will not order the removal of the dog.
In the present case the additional dog that the tenant has chosen to adopt is of a type that is unsuitable for the tenant community and must be removed by the tenant.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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 landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 29 July 2025 regarding the dog, but the dog remains at the premises.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because if the tenant chooses to keep the dog, the removal of the risk to the landlord’s other tenants can only be achieved by both the tenant and the dog ending their occupation of 7D Roberts Street, Tawa.
For these reasons, the tenant must either remove the dog or leave the tenancy. Filing fee
Because the landlord has been successful with the claim the filing fee of $28.00 is ordered to be paid by the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5322444 — 14-day notice at 7D Roberts Street, Tawa, Wellington 5028

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5322444 — 14-day notice at 7D Roberts Street, Tawa, Wellington 5028

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.