What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5450531 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 10 Windmill Road, Pukekohe,

How much money was awarded in case 5450531?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5450531?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5450531?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13308543-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5450531 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 10 Windmill Road, Pukekohe,

How much money was awarded in case 5450531?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5450531?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5450531?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13308543-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10 Windmill Road, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5450531 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 10 Windmill Road, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59pm on Wednesday 18 March 2026.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended today’s hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
On the 21 November 2025 the Tribunal made the following orders: [The tenant/s] must carry out the following work at the premises by 5pmon Friday 19 December 2025: a. Remove the dog from the premises. b. Remove the man-made structures forming walls between the house and the garage. c. Mow the lawns so that the grounds are reasonably tidy. If the tenant fails to comply with this order, the landlord may request a hearing to consider termination of the tenancy and/or any other appropriate remedy.
On the 22 December the landlord completed an inspection of the property to ensure compliance with the Tribunal’s order. The tenant appeared to have made some attempt to mow the lawns at the front of the property and had removed some of the illegal structures and rubbish. However, the dog remained on the property and the lawns at the back of the property and much of the piled- up rubbish remained.
The tenant asked if the landlord if the dog could stay the landlord confirmed that the dog could not stay at the property.
I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to comply with the Tribunal’s order of the 21 November by failing to remove the dog, mow the lawns at the back of the property and remove the rubbish and structures at the property.
The landlord says that they went to the house again in January 2026 to deliver a letter and saw the dog on the property.
The landlord went to the house today. Whilst the landlord did not see the dog, they do not know if the dog was there or not. Because of the nature of the dog, they were unwilling to go onto the property without confirmation that it was tied up or not at the property. The tenant was not at the property today.

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 Tribunal has already in its decision of 21 November found that the tenant was in breach of her obligations not to keep a dog (see paragraph 7) and has altered the premises without permission (see paragraph 10).
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 17 July 2025 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
In additional the tenant has failed to comply with the orders of the Tribunal.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because: • The tenant has been in breach of her obligations for a significant period. • The dog is unregistered and has been described by neighbours and the property manager as aggressive and vicious. • The tenant’s refusal to remove the dog and to remedy the other breach shows an unwillingness to co-operate with the landlord’s reasonable requests. • There are several other homes nearby that are tenanted by the landlord’s neighbours, the landlord must be mindful of the safety of its other residents who report that they are fearful of the dog. There are young children and elderly residents in those homes. • The landlord cannot conduct inspections or have tradespeople to the home if the dog is present. • The home is falling into disrepair. The long grass presents a fire hazard as does the remaining illegal structure and piles of rubbish which are near to doors and may impede exiting the property in a fire. The dog and the structures may impede emergency services accessing the property. • The landlord has given the tenant multiple chances to remedy the situation, and the tenant has refused to do so.
The tenancy is therefore terminated.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 10 Windmill Road, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59pm on Wednesday 18 March 2026.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended today’s hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
On the 21 November 2025 the Tribunal made the following orders: [The tenant/s] must carry out the following work at the premises by 5pmon Friday 19 December 2025: a. Remove the dog from the premises. b. Remove the man-made structures forming walls between the house and the garage. c. Mow the lawns so that the grounds are reasonably tidy. If the tenant fails to comply with this order, the landlord may request a hearing to consider termination of the tenancy and/or any other appropriate remedy.
On the 22 December the landlord completed an inspection of the property to ensure compliance with the Tribunal’s order. The tenant appeared to have made some attempt to mow the lawns at the front of the property and had removed some of the illegal structures and rubbish. However, the dog remained on the property and the lawns at the back of the property and much of the piled- up rubbish remained.
The tenant asked if the landlord if the dog could stay the landlord confirmed that the dog could not stay at the property.
I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to comply with the Tribunal’s order of the 21 November by failing to remove the dog, mow the lawns at the back of the property and remove the rubbish and structures at the property.
The landlord says that they went to the house again in January 2026 to deliver a letter and saw the dog on the property.
The landlord went to the house today. Whilst the landlord did not see the dog, they do not know if the dog was there or not. Because of the nature of the dog, they were unwilling to go onto the property without confirmation that it was tied up or not at the property. The tenant was not at the property today.

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 Tribunal has already in its decision of 21 November found that the tenant was in breach of her obligations not to keep a dog (see paragraph 7) and has altered the premises without permission (see paragraph 10).
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 17 July 2025 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
In additional the tenant has failed to comply with the orders of the Tribunal.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because: • The tenant has been in breach of her obligations for a significant period. • The dog is unregistered and has been described by neighbours and the property manager as aggressive and vicious. • The tenant’s refusal to remove the dog and to remedy the other breach shows an unwillingness to co-operate with the landlord’s reasonable requests. • There are several other homes nearby that are tenanted by the landlord’s neighbours, the landlord must be mindful of the safety of its other residents who report that they are fearful of the dog. There are young children and elderly residents in those homes. • The landlord cannot conduct inspections or have tradespeople to the home if the dog is present. • The home is falling into disrepair. The long grass presents a fire hazard as does the remaining illegal structure and piles of rubbish which are near to doors and may impede exiting the property in a fire. The dog and the structures may impede emergency services accessing the property. • The landlord has given the tenant multiple chances to remedy the situation, and the tenant has refused to do so.
The tenancy is therefore terminated.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5450531 — 14-day notice at 10 Windmill Road, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5450531 — 14-day notice at 10 Windmill Road, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120

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

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions