What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5348441 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants seek suppression Orders. However they have not been successful

How much money was awarded in case 5348441?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5348441?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5348441?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13137887-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5348441 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants seek suppression Orders. However they have not been successful

How much money was awarded in case 5348441?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5348441?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5348441?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13137887-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

28 Koro Lane, Mangere Bridge, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5348441 — Unit Titles

Order

The tenants seek suppression Orders. However they have not been successful with their claim and the grounds for suppression are not established 1 .
The Order made by the Tribunal in these proceedings dated 12 December 2025 is confirmed and may be enforced.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by videoconference. Background
An Order was made by the Tribunal on 12 December 2025 (“December Order”).
The December Order terminated the tenancy and required that the tenants pay rent to 8 January 2026, the day before a new tenancy for the premises started.
The tenants applied for a rehearing on the grounds that Ms Prasad could not attend the hearing for health reasons. A rehearing was granted on the papers 1 See s.95A(1) RTA on 22 December 2025, limited to the issue of how much rent the tenants should be required to pay.

What happened?

On 28 October 2025, the property manager advised the tenants that, “I have received an e-mail from the Body Corp committee that a shed has been built and attached to the deck and also a golden retriever puppy is at the property.”
The tenants replied explaining that the puppy had been staying with Ms Khan’s mother who had become unwell and that, “The arrangement is only short term until she recovers...”
There were further exchanges in which Ms Prasad noted her concerns about how personal information (facebook posts about the puppy) became known to the Body Corporate committee and how the Body Corporate could have formed the view that the shed had been fixed to the deck without having invaded the tenants’ privacy.
The tenants offered to vacate early and relinquish the bond to the landlord. They offered to pay an additional $50.00 per week in rent until the fixed term ended, to cover any additional wear and tear from the puppy being there.
The property manager confirmed that the owner would not agree to the puppy remaining at the premises and that it would need to be rehomed by 14 November 2025.
The tenants could not find a new home for the puppy and moved out on 11 November 2025, notifying the landlord on 17 November.
The landlord found new tenants and another tenancy for the premises started on 9 January 2026.
Ms Khan’s mother has not regained her health sufficiently to resume care of the puppy, which has remained with the tenants in their new rental property. Issue
What the Tribunal needs to decide is whether, in those circumstances, the tenants are entitled to be released from their obligation to pay rent for the premises, before the tenancy was terminated on 8 January 2026. Analysis
The parties entered into a fixed term agreement for a term from 6 February 2025 to 28 February 2026.
Relevant terms of the agreement are: a. “Pets allowed – no” b. “If this agreement shall be in respect of a tenancy of an apartment involving the Unit Titles Act 2010 then the rules attached to this agreement bind the tenants provided they do not conflict with rights under the RTA” 2
A copy of the Body Corporate rules is not provided in evidence but it is not disputed that those rules require Body Corporate approval for a dog of over 8kgs. The tenants say that at the time, the puppy weighed less than that.
Section 50 RTA sets out the circumstances in which a fixed term tenancy comes to an end. None of those circumstances apply here.
A tenant can apply to the Tribunal for an Order reducing the term of a fixed term tenancy, where otherwise severe hardship would be caused due to an unforeseen change in circumstances 3 .
No such application has been made by the tenants and the evidence does not prove grounds for early termination under that provision.
A tenant may be entitled to cancel a fixed term agreement where the landlord has fundamentally breached obligations owed to the tenant under it. First though, where the breach is capable of remedy, the tenant should give notice to the landlord under s.56 RTA 4 . The tenant can then seek termination if the breach is not remedied.
Fundamentally, in this case, the evidence does not show any breach of a legal obligation owed to the tenants by the landlord.
The agreement itself and the Body Corporate rules incorporated into it, did not allow pets without consent.
The agreement was signed and the circumstances outlined above arose, before the provisions of ss.44C-44F RTA concerning the keeping of pets, came into effect on 1 December 2025.
Even if those provisions had been applicable, meaning that the landlord could not unreasonably refuse consent to the tenants having a pet 5 , the Body Corporate rules applying to the premises mean it would not be unreasonable for the landlord to refuse consent 6 . The increasing size of the puppy and the nature of the premises may also have made it reasonable to decline consent 7 . 2 Clause 12 of the agreement 3 S.66 RTA 4 See for example Li v Onecall Property Management Ltd [2023] NZDC 9332 5 S.42E(4) RTA 6 S.42F(b) RTA 7 S.42F(a) RTA
Under those provisions, by keeping a pet, contrary to the agreement and without the landlord’s consent, the tenants would have committed an unlawful act 8 .
The tenants’ position is that they were placed in the very difficult situation of having to care for the puppy because Ms Kahn’s mother was very unwell and there was no other option. They say that it was unreasonable for the landlord not to have accepted one of the compromise proposals they offered to try and address the situation.
While I sympathise with the situation the tenants were in, with no proven breach of the landlord’s obligations, the evidence does not provide a basis for requiring the landlord to accept a loss of rent it was entitled to receive under the fixed term agreement.
Finally, I note that the evidence does not prove any breach of the landlord’s obligation to mitigate loss 9 . Reasonable steps were taken to establish a new tenancy after the tenants vacated and the new tenancy started within a reasonable period.
For those reasons, there is no need to change the December Order.

Order

The tenants seek suppression Orders. However they have not been successful with their claim and the grounds for suppression are not established 1 .
The Order made by the Tribunal in these proceedings dated 12 December 2025 is confirmed and may be enforced.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by videoconference. Background
An Order was made by the Tribunal on 12 December 2025 (“December Order”).
The December Order terminated the tenancy and required that the tenants pay rent to 8 January 2026, the day before a new tenancy for the premises started.
The tenants applied for a rehearing on the grounds that Ms Prasad could not attend the hearing for health reasons. A rehearing was granted on the papers 1 See s.95A(1) RTA on 22 December 2025, limited to the issue of how much rent the tenants should be required to pay.

What happened?

On 28 October 2025, the property manager advised the tenants that, “I have received an e-mail from the Body Corp committee that a shed has been built and attached to the deck and also a golden retriever puppy is at the property.”
The tenants replied explaining that the puppy had been staying with Ms Khan’s mother who had become unwell and that, “The arrangement is only short term until she recovers...”
There were further exchanges in which Ms Prasad noted her concerns about how personal information (facebook posts about the puppy) became known to the Body Corporate committee and how the Body Corporate could have formed the view that the shed had been fixed to the deck without having invaded the tenants’ privacy.
The tenants offered to vacate early and relinquish the bond to the landlord. They offered to pay an additional $50.00 per week in rent until the fixed term ended, to cover any additional wear and tear from the puppy being there.
The property manager confirmed that the owner would not agree to the puppy remaining at the premises and that it would need to be rehomed by 14 November 2025.
The tenants could not find a new home for the puppy and moved out on 11 November 2025, notifying the landlord on 17 November.
The landlord found new tenants and another tenancy for the premises started on 9 January 2026.
Ms Khan’s mother has not regained her health sufficiently to resume care of the puppy, which has remained with the tenants in their new rental property. Issue
What the Tribunal needs to decide is whether, in those circumstances, the tenants are entitled to be released from their obligation to pay rent for the premises, before the tenancy was terminated on 8 January 2026. Analysis
The parties entered into a fixed term agreement for a term from 6 February 2025 to 28 February 2026.
Relevant terms of the agreement are: a. “Pets allowed – no” b. “If this agreement shall be in respect of a tenancy of an apartment involving the Unit Titles Act 2010 then the rules attached to this agreement bind the tenants provided they do not conflict with rights under the RTA” 2
A copy of the Body Corporate rules is not provided in evidence but it is not disputed that those rules require Body Corporate approval for a dog of over 8kgs. The tenants say that at the time, the puppy weighed less than that.
Section 50 RTA sets out the circumstances in which a fixed term tenancy comes to an end. None of those circumstances apply here.
A tenant can apply to the Tribunal for an Order reducing the term of a fixed term tenancy, where otherwise severe hardship would be caused due to an unforeseen change in circumstances 3 .
No such application has been made by the tenants and the evidence does not prove grounds for early termination under that provision.
A tenant may be entitled to cancel a fixed term agreement where the landlord has fundamentally breached obligations owed to the tenant under it. First though, where the breach is capable of remedy, the tenant should give notice to the landlord under s.56 RTA 4 . The tenant can then seek termination if the breach is not remedied.
Fundamentally, in this case, the evidence does not show any breach of a legal obligation owed to the tenants by the landlord.
The agreement itself and the Body Corporate rules incorporated into it, did not allow pets without consent.
The agreement was signed and the circumstances outlined above arose, before the provisions of ss.44C-44F RTA concerning the keeping of pets, came into effect on 1 December 2025.
Even if those provisions had been applicable, meaning that the landlord could not unreasonably refuse consent to the tenants having a pet 5 , the Body Corporate rules applying to the premises mean it would not be unreasonable for the landlord to refuse consent 6 . The increasing size of the puppy and the nature of the premises may also have made it reasonable to decline consent 7 . 2 Clause 12 of the agreement 3 S.66 RTA 4 See for example Li v Onecall Property Management Ltd [2023] NZDC 9332 5 S.42E(4) RTA 6 S.42F(b) RTA 7 S.42F(a) RTA
Under those provisions, by keeping a pet, contrary to the agreement and without the landlord’s consent, the tenants would have committed an unlawful act 8 .
The tenants’ position is that they were placed in the very difficult situation of having to care for the puppy because Ms Kahn’s mother was very unwell and there was no other option. They say that it was unreasonable for the landlord not to have accepted one of the compromise proposals they offered to try and address the situation.
While I sympathise with the situation the tenants were in, with no proven breach of the landlord’s obligations, the evidence does not provide a basis for requiring the landlord to accept a loss of rent it was entitled to receive under the fixed term agreement.
Finally, I note that the evidence does not prove any breach of the landlord’s obligation to mitigate loss 9 . Reasonable steps were taken to establish a new tenancy after the tenants vacated and the new tenancy started within a reasonable period.
For those reasons, there is no need to change the December Order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5348441 — Unit Titles at 28 Koro Lane, Mangere Bridge, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5348441 — Unit Titles at 28 Koro Lane, Mangere Bridge, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What happened?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

What happened?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions