Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5414008 — Unit Titles at 1 Friendship Place, Onerahi, Whangarei 0110
Published 10 February 2026 · Application 5414008
Mixed / unclear
- Unit Titles
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Mixed / unclear
From published order
Location
Whangarei
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
M Feist
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- Pania Lois Hinemoa BROWN must not keep or allow any dog to be present at 1 Friendship Place, Onerahi, Whangarei 0110.
- If any dog is found to be located at 1 Friendship Place, Onerahi, Whangarei, 0110, within 100 days of this order then Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities can apply to the Tribunal to have this case re-opened and the application for termination determined.
Reasons
- On 15 December 2025, the landlord applied to the Tribunal seeking: a. An order requiring the tenant to remove any and all dogs from the property. b. Termination of the tenancy, in the event the tenant failed to comply with the Order at paragraph [1(a)].
- The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Thompson-Wise, Senior Tribunal Adviser, appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared.
- At the hearing, the landlord sought a conditional termination of the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations
- The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
- With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
- That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
- This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
- As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. History of the tenancy
- The tenancy commenced on 15 November 2023 and is periodic.
- On 6 March 2025, the landlord received an anonymous complaint alleging the tenant was keeping a goat, chicken, and multiple dogs at the property. The landlord was unable to speak to the tenant about this, but in e-mail correspondence the tenant advised she had rehomed the goat, would get rid of the chicken and had one dog.
- On 12 May 2025, the landlord received an anonymous complaint advising the tenant had nine Pitbull dogs at the property which had been escaping into neighbouring properties, getting into rubbish, and barking.
- On 13 May 2025, the Senior Housing Support Manager (SHSM), on behalf of the landlord, and Animal Control attended the property. Eight or nine dogs (including puppies) were sighted. The puppies were found to be registered to a different address.
- On 15 May 2025, the tenant was issued with a 14-day breach notice under section 56 of the Act and given until 4 June 2025 to remove the dogs from the property.
- On 27 May 2025, the tenant advised the landlord that the puppies belonged to her daughter, were registered and were being rehomed.
- On 4 June 2025, the SHSM and Animal Control attended the property. The puppies were being removed and the large dogs were surrendered to Animal Control. The SHSM provided the tenant with an animal information form and advised the tenant that she needed the landlord’s consent to keep pets at the property.
- On 12 June 2025, the landlord was advised by Animal Control that one adult dog had been given back to the tenant as she had paid the fine and registration fee. The landlord was also told that the puppies had been returned to the tenant’s address and had got into rubbish.
- On 17 July 2025, the landlord sent an e-mail to the tenant asking for her to complete and return the keeping pets application form and advising that the puppies had got into rubbish. The tenant failed to respond.
- On 25 June 2025 Animal Control contacted the landlord and listed 17 complaints they had received about animals being kept at the property between 7 March 2024 and 16 June 2025.
- On 1 July 2025, the landlord formally declined permission for the tenant to keep pets at the property.
- On 14 July 2025, the SHSM visited the property but did not enter the premises as three dogs were barking at the gate.
- On 16 July 2025 Animal Control responded to a request of the SHSM confirming that two further complaints had been received about the tenants dogs wandering. One dog was taken and not claimed.
- On 11 August 2025, the tenant was issued with a 14-day breach notice under section 56 of the Act requiring her to remove all dogs from the property. The breach was remedied.
- On 12 August 2025, the landlord applied to the Tribunal for an order requiring all dogs to be removed from the property. The application was later withdrawn.
- On 7 October 2025 Animal Control notified the landlord that dogs had again been sighted at the tenant’s property and that she had been disqualified from owning dogs.
- On 17 October 2025, the landlord completed a home visit at the property. No dogs were sighted.
- On 11 November 2025 Animal Control contacted the landlord and advised that dogs had been sighted at the property.
- On 4 December 2025 Animal Control contacted the landlord and confirmed that three dogs were sighted at the property.
- On 11 December 2025, Animal Control contacted the landlord and advised that one dog, belonging to the tenant’s daughter – who appeared to be living at the property, was sighted and impounded.
- On 12 December 2025, the tenant was issued with a 14-day breach notice under section 56 of the Act requiring her to remove all dogs from the property. The notice expired on 29 December 2025.
- On 29 December 2025, the SHSM attended the property. There was no obvious signs of dogs being kept at the property. Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities pet policy
- The Tribunal was provided with a copy of the tenancy agreement. The tenancy agreement states at clause 20: 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 this Agreement.
- The Appendix: Can I Keep A Pet states: If you want to have a pet, including a dog, you need to let us know. We may allow you to keep pet(s) at your home as long as: • Kāinga Ora thinks your home is suitable for keeping a pet and • The pet is not a health or safety risk to staff, contractors, or others and • The pet is not likely to, or does not, attack any person or other pet and • The pet is not likely to, or does not, cause a nuisance to your neighbours and • The pet is not likely to, or does not, damage the home and • You secure the pet when Kāinga Ora staff or contractors visit your home and • You meet: -The Kāinga Ora policy for pets, dated from time to time and available on the Kāinga Ora website and -All your legal responsibilities of pet ownership including any applicable local council bylaws, body corporate rules and other relevant legislation and If the pet is a dog, as long as: • The dog is not a specified dangerous or menacing dog under the Dog Control Act 1996 and • You or the dog owner are not a prohibited or disqualified pet owner under the Dog Control Act 1996 or the Animal Welfare Act 1999. Order by Consent
- The tenant acknowledged dogs and puppies have been kept at the property and said that her children are responsible for leaving their animals with her.
- The Tenant said she recognises the seriousness of the breaches, apologised for what has happened and asked for an order preventing her from keeping animals at the property.
- The Tribunal is satisfied the tenant has breached the terms of their tenancy agreement by keeping or allowing animals, including dogs to be present at the property.
- The Tribunal has not determined whether or not the tenancy should be terminated under section 56 of the Act.
- Following a discussion between the parties the following orders were agreed by consent:
- Pania Lois Hinemoa BROWN must not keep or allow any dog to be present at 1 Friendship Place, Onerahi, Whangarei 0110.
- If any dog is found to be located at 1 Friendship Place, Onerahi, Whangarei, 0110, within 100 days of this order then Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities can apply to the Tribunal to have this case re-opened and the application for termination determined.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s4, s56
Key findings
- Dispute theme: unit titles
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5414008?
The tribunal order states: Pania Lois Hinemoa BROWN must not keep or allow any dog to be present at
How much money was awarded in case 5414008?
Verified claim lines are listed on this page.
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5414008?
The primary dispute was Unit Titles.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5414008?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13097129-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.