What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5340528 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must:

How much money was awarded in case 5340528?

3. Aimee Ruth O’Connor Is To Pay Jos…: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5340528?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5340528?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12628471-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5340528 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must:

How much money was awarded in case 5340528?

3. Aimee Ruth O’Connor Is To Pay Jos…: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5340528?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5340528?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12628471-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

23A Donald Street, Regent, Whangarei 0112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5340528 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5340528. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
3. Aimee Ruth O’Connor is to pay Joseph Cowan and Frances Cowan	$28.00		3. Aimee Ruth O’Connor is to pay Joseph Cowan and Frances Cowan

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must: a. Remove the Staffordshire Bull Terrier “Reddy“ from the tenanted premises by no later than Monday 17 November 2025. b. Confirm in writing (email or text message is acceptable) to [The tenant/s] landlord/s] by later than Monday 17 November 2025 that she has removed Reddy from the premises. c. Ensure that Reddy does not return to the tenanted premises at any time for any reason.

If the tenant: a. Fails to remove Reddy from the premises by 17 November 2025; or b. Fails to confirm in writing that she has removed Reddy from the premises; or c. Removes Reddy from the premises by allows him to return to the premises at any time; then d. The tenancy at 23A Donald Street, Regent, Whangarei 0112 will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises.

Aimee Ruth O’Connor is to pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $28.00 immediately, being the filing fee for this application.

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 5 May 2025. Ms O’Connor is the sole named tenant.

The landlord’s application seeks termination of the tenancy.

The tenant’s application seeks exemplary damages, compensation, and declarations as detailed below.

The hearing took place on 29 October 2025 at the Whangarei Court. The hearing of both applications was scheduled to begin at 9.30am. At 9.27am, Ms O’Connor sent an email to the Registrar seeking an adjournment of the hearing. Ms O’Connor then appeared briefly at the Whangarei Court. Ms O’Connor was in a very agitated state. She said that she feared for her safety. She declined to elaborate on her situation or why she wanted an adjournment. I asked Ms O’Connor if she could remain for the hearing. She said that she could not. I told her that without adequate reasons and supporting evidence for her adjournment request, I would proceed with the hearing in her absence.

Ms O’Connor left the hearing room, and the hearing proceeded in her absence. Landlord application

The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant has a dog at the premises, in contravention of the terms of the tenancy agreement.

The tenancy agreement states: Pets allowed = the existing 2 cats only. Pets by negotiation

In August Mr Cowan discovered that Ms O’Connor had a dog at the property - a Staffordshire Bull Terrier called Redd.

Ms O’Connor asked Mr Cowan if Redd could remain in the short time while she re-homed him. Mr Cowan agreed.

Mr Cowan then received complaints from neighbours about noise from the dog (loud howling and whining).

On 28 August Mr Cowan sent Ms O’Connor an email stating that the dog must be removed from the premises by 31 August. The reasons that Mr Cowan gave are that the premises are not suitable for a dog, the tenancy agreement states two cats only, and the dog “annoys neighbours”.

Ms O’Connor then refused to remove Redd. Ms O’Connor asserts that she has a legal right to keep Redd, who she says is an emotional support animal.

However, there is no such right as the law currently stands.

There is a change to the law on the horizon in respect of pets in residential tenancies. Ms O’Connor’s arguments anticipate, and largely misinterpret, that coming law change.

When the change to the law takes effect, tenants will be able to make request in writing to the landlord asking for permission to have a pet. Landlords may not unreasonably refuse such a request.

What tenants cannot do, even under the “new rules” is bring in a pet without the landlord’s knowledge and then ask for consent retrospectively, which is exactly what Ms O’Connor has done here.

In any event, the change is not yet in effect. Ms O’Connor’s written submission refers to section 49AA of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. That section does not exist yet. Under the current law, landlords do not have to consent to tenant requests for pets even if the requests are reasonable. Landlords can have “no pets” provisions in tenancy agreements.

In this instance the terms of the tenancy agreement are clear. The only permitted pets are Ms O’Connor’s two cats.

Ms O’Connor is in breach of the tenancy agreement

The Tribunal may make an order terminating a tenancy if: 1 a. The tenant breaches a term of the tenancy agreement or of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986; and b. If the breach is capable of being remedied, the landlord has given the tenant notice in writing identifying the breach and giving the tenant a reasonable period of time (not less than 14-days) to remedy the breach; and c. The breach was not remedied within the notice period; and d. The nature and extent of the breach is such that it would be inequitable to refuse the request for termination.

In this instance I am satisfied that: a. Ms O’Connor breached the tenancy agreement. 1 Section 56 RTA b. The nature and extent of the breach is such that it would be inequitable to refuse the request for termination. Mr Cowan provided evidence of the disturbance that the dog is causing to Ms O’Connor’s neighbours. The property does not have a grassed area / lawn. It is not suitable for a dog.

Mr Cowan has sent several messages to Ms O’Connor which state clearly that Ms O’Connor is in breach of the tenancy agreement by having a dog and that Ms O’Connor must remove the dog. Ms O’Connor has also had considerably more than 14-days to remove the dog, and she refuses to do so.

However, the technical deficiency in Mr Cowan’s notices is that the timeframe that he gave Ms O’Connor iwas not “at least 14 days” as the law requires.

Therefore: a. This order serves as notice to Ms O’Connor that she must remove Redd from the premises by 17 November 2025.. b. Ms O’Connor must remove Redd, confirm in writing to Mr Cowan that Redd has been removed, and ensure that Redd does not return to the property in any circumstances. c. If Ms O’Connor fails to do this, the criteria for termination of the tenancy are met. I have made a conditional termination order. The landlord may use this order to terminate the tenancy. d. If Ms O’Connor meets these conditions, the termination order lapses, and the tenancy will continue. Tenant application

Ms O’Connor sought damages and declarations under four headings: a. “Health and safety / work orders”. b. Harassment and unlawful entry. c. “Loss of quiet enjoyment and mental harm”. d. Declaration that she is legally entitled to keep Redd at the premises. Health and safety

Ms O’Connor’s application states that there is an “illegal unfenced pool and deck safety gate”.

The pool that Ms O’Connor refers to is not on the tenanted premises. It is on a neighbour’s property. The pool has been broken down but not entirely removed. It collects a small amount of rainwater.

Mr Cowan has no maintenance or safety obligations in respect of the neighbour’s property. Harassment

Ms O’Connor’s application states that Mr Cowan “committed multiple acts of harassment including swearing, threats (eg offering a gun) and coercion”.

There is no evidence in support of these serious allegations. There is evidence, from statements provided by Ms O’Connor’s neighbour, of bad language and anti-social behaviour by her. Mr Cowan said that the ‘gun’ reference could only refer to an occasion when he suggested that she use a toy water gun to scare aware neighbourhood cats that were coming into the property and attacking her cats.

Ms O’Connor alleged an unlawful entry.

Mr Cowan said that he only came to the property once, when he visited the neighbour to talk to her about Ms O’Connor’s concerns regarding the swimming pool.

Landlords do not need to give notice or have the tenant’s consent to come onto the exterior of the property or walk up the driveway. Section 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act only pertains to the dwelling itself, not the “land and facilities”. 2

There are no proven unlawful entries. Loss of enjoyment and mental harm

Ms O’Connor’s application states that Mr Cowan interfered with her peace comfort and privacy by requiring her to remove her dog and eliciting “false dog complaints” from neighbours.

I am satisfied that: a. Mr Cowan was entitled to require Ms O’Connor to remove the dog. Ms O’Connor has no legal right to keep a dog at the premises. b. Mr Cowan received the complaints from neighbours and the complaints were warranted. Mr Cowan’s evidence includes a video recording evidencing the loud howling coming from Ms O’Connor’s property. Declaration 2 Section

As stated above, Ms O’Connor has no legal right to the dog and therefore I am unable to make the declaration that she is seeking. Outcome, filing fee

Ms O’Connor is in breach of the tenancy agreement.

Mr Cowan is entitled to require Ms O’Connor to remove the dog.

Ms O’Connor must remove the dog by 14 November and ensure that he does not return. If she does not, Mr Cowan may terminate the tenancy immediately.

Ms O’Connor’s application is dismissed.

Because the landlord has been successful in their application, I must order that the tenant pay the landlord the filing fee. 3

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5340528. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
3. Aimee Ruth O’Connor is to pay Joseph Cowan and Frances Cowan	$28.00		3. Aimee Ruth O’Connor is to pay Joseph Cowan and Frances Cowan