How much money was awarded in case 5461831?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5461831?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5461831?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13851602-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5461831?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5461831?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5461831?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13851602-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5461831 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5461831 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application for an order requiring the removal of the cats is declined.
The tenancy agreement is varied to record that the tenant may keep the two cats at the property with the following conditions: i. The tenant must pay a pet bond of two weeks’ rent, ii. The tenant may keep the two cats at the property, being the subject of the application. If one of these cats passes away, the tenant must seek and obtain the prior written consent of the landlord before obtaining a replacement cat, iii. The tenant must ensure that the cats have access to a litter box, which is regularly changed, and that they have access to adequate food and water. iv. The tenant must have the carpets professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy.
If the tenant does not comply with the conditions above, the order varying the agreement allowing the tenant to keep pets is revoked. Proceedings:
The tenant appeared and was supported by their [redacted]. [Landlord representatives] appeared for the landlord.
The tenant is keeping two cats at the property contrary to the terms of the tenancy agreement. The landlord is seeking an order from the Tribunal that they be removed and that the tenant not allow any cats at the property.
The issue in this case is whether the landlord has reasonable grounds to decline a request made by the tenant. Facts
On 06 March 2025, a property manager for the landlord observed cats inside the property.
On 14 March 2025, 7 April 2025, and 11 September 2025, the landlord issued the tenant with 14-day notices to rehome the cats and not allow cats on the property. The landlord states that on each occasion the tenant has failed to comply with the notice.
The landlord has provided tenancy inspection reports dated 26 March 2025, 30 April 2025, and 27 May 2025, which include photographs. The landlord states that on each occasion, the property smelled of urine, the carpet in the main bedroom was urine-stained, and there was evidence of cat litter on the floor.
On 5 June 2025, the landlord issued a 14-day notice to remove carpet stains and repair a hole in kitchen cabinetry. The carpet was cleaned. It does not appear that the hole was related to the keeping of cats.
The landlord, who is a social housing provider and leases the property, sought the views of the owner as to whether the tenant could keep the cat.
The landlord responded: “I would prefer there are no pets at the property. It is an apartment building with no cat door, and they cannot use an open window as it is on the 2nd storey. It is a six-unit apartment building; if everyone had a pet there would be chaos and not fair on the animals. I cannot see how it is fair on the pet living in that sort of situation.”
Following the changes to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act) allowing tenants to make requests to keep pets, the landlord approached the owner again.
The landlord declined the tenant keeping a pet, citing the same

Reasons

previously given.

The tenant had kept the cats without first seeking permission,
The tenant had failed multiple property inspections where carpet stains and odour had been detected,
The carpet was likely to be damaged. They provided a quote for replacing the carpet underlay and carpet for $3,270.60, with replacement of the underly only a lesser amount.
The landlord submitted that as the rent is subsidised, and not a market rent, that a pet bond of two weeks’ rent, equivalent to $204.00, would be insufficient bond to cover any insurance excess that may apply, which they estimated was between $800.00 and $1,000.00 per claim. Although, they stated that the owner’s insurance would not likely cover damage caused by pets.
The landlord stated that the carpet was over six years old and halfway through its useful expected life span. They stated that, should the tenancy end and the carpet require replacement due to damage caused by the tenant’s cats, that the tenant’s liability would be inadequate, and the landlord would suffer a loss.
They stated the property was a small unit on the second floor, with close shared living arrangements with two other units on that floor.
Due to the close proximity of neighbouring units, noise, odour, and other disturbances could easily impact the other tenants and affect their right to quiet enjoyment.
The tenant accepted that they had kept the cats without first seeking the permission of the landlord.
The cats are rescue cats: a female aged two and a half, and a male aged one and a half. The female is spayed, the male is neutered. Each is microchipped and vaccinated.
The tenant states that the cats suffer from medical conditions which mean they are indoor cats only. The tenant stated that even if there were a cat door, they would not use it. They state that, in any event, the cats would likely not venture outside.
The tenant stated that they suffered from mobility issues and that some of the stains were attributable to their accidentally dropping food and beverages on the floor. The tenant stated that the carpets had been professionally cleaned and that there was no evidence of damage. The landlord conceded that no damage had been caused to date but noted that urine crystals had been detected in the carpet.
The tenant denied that the unit was too small to accommodate two cats inside, referring to material on cat-to-square-metre ratios.
The tenant stated that indoor cats are not unusual and that many owners keep their cats inside without issue.
The tenant stated that the cats used litter boxes and that any instances where they had not done so were dealt with quickly.
The tenant stated that they had offered to pay a pet bond, have the carpets cleaned quarterly, and the whole property professionally cleaned annually.
The tenant accepted that if the carpet were damaged that they would be liable subject to depreciation and betterment.
The tenant states they have tried to rehome the cats but that they were returned. The tenant states that if they cannot keep the cats, they will have to be euthanised. Law
From 01 December 2025, tenants may make a written request to keep a pet in a rental property. Landlords cannot unreasonably withhold consent. These rules apply to all residential tenancies, including those commencing prior to 01 December 2025.
In Tenant v Landlord [2026] NZTT 540190, dated 19 May 2026, the Tribunal considered the intention of the recent amendments around pet consent, stating: [24] The pet consent rules are an intentional move away from blanket “no pet” policies and are intended to enable tenants to have pets, while enabling a landlord to decline consent – but only where it is reasonable to do so. [25] The pet consent rules recognise the benefits that humans receive from keeping pets, including by aiding stability and social life for many people and being important for friendship, fellowship, and mental health. The pet consent rules are a deliberate “reversion of the status quo,” a reversal of the presumption against tenants having pets. Parliament intended to make it easier for tenants to have pets. 1
The pet consent provisions are set out in sections 42E, 42F and 42G of the Act.
Section 42F sets out the reasonable grounds for refusing consent, and states: 42F Reasonable grounds for prohibiting tenant from, or refusing tenant consent for, keeping pet. For the purposes of sections 42D and 42E, reasonable grounds for prohibiting a tenant from keeping a pet in a tenancy agreement or refusing consent for a tenant to keep a pet include the following (for example): (a) the premises are not suitable for the pet or pets (for example, because of the size or fencing of the premises, or other unique features of the premises): 1 (10 December 2024) 708 NZPD (Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill – Committee of the House, Chris Bishop) at 8008, (10 December 2024) 708 NZPD (Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill – Third Reading, Chris Bishop) at 8082 (b) a rule or bylaw applying to the premises under this Act or other legislation prohibits the pet or pets from being kept on the premises: (c) the tenant has not complied with relevant bylaws relating to the pet or type of pet: (d) the pet or pets are not suitable for the premises— i. due to the number of pets; or ii. due to their size or type (for example, their species or breed); or iii. due to their propensity for causing damage to premises or disruption to other persons residing in the neighbourhood; or iv. because they include a dog that has been classified as dangerous or menacing under the Dog Control Act 1996; or v. because there is good reason to believe they have previously attacked persons, livestock, or other pets: (e) the tenant has not agreed with a reasonable condition to which the landlord proposes to make the tenancy agreement or the consent subject: (f) the tenant has previously failed to comply with a reasonable condition relating to the tenant keeping a pet.
Section 42G sets out what are considered reasonable conditions. 42G Reasonable conditions relating to tenant keeping pet. (1) For the purposes of sections 42C to 42F, a condition relating to a tenant keeping a pet that is set out in a tenancy agreement or attached to a landlord’s consent must be reasonable having regard to the nature of the premises and the type of pet or pets to which it applies. (2) Reasonable conditions may include the following (for example): (a) a condition that the tenant agree to pay an amount of pet bond set by the landlord in accordance with section 18AA (and agree to a variation of the tenancy agreement under section 13B to that effect): (b) a condition requiring a pet or pets to be restrained while a landlord lawfully enters the premises: (c) if a pet is allowed inside the premises, a condition requiring the carpets in the premises to be cleaned to a professional standard at the end of the tenancy. (3) Subsection (2) is subject to subsection (1).
Under section 18AA of the Act, a landlord can require a pet bond of up to 2 weeks’ rent if the tenant is keeping (or intends to keep) a pet on the premises and the landlord has agreed to allow the pet.
Section 42F is a non-exhaustive list, and all relevant factors should be considered.
In Tenant v Landlord at paragraphs [28] – [32], the Tribunal confirmed a two- stage test: the first limb involves a factual assessment of why consent was withheld and the reasons for it; the second limb is an assessment of the reasonableness of that decision. The Tribunal went on to note that what is reasonable will differ in each case and must be determined with reference to the facts of the case and the text and purpose of the pet consent provisions.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for, including pets. See section 49B (1) of the Act.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is certain. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Under section 49B (2) and (3) of the Act, a tenant is liable for damage to the premises caused by carelessness. However, if the property is insured, the tenant’s liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks’ rent (or market rent for income-related tenancies). Analysis and decision
While the landlord has provided the tenant clear reasons for their refusal, after conducting an objective assessment, I do not find that the refusal is reasonable in the circumstances.
Considering the factors in section 42F: i. I accept the tenant’s submission that not all cats must have access to an outdoor space, and that, depending on the circumstances, some are solely inside cats. ii. The property does not share any facilities with the tenants of neighbouring units. iii. There are no bylaws preventing the tenant keeping cats. iv. The material referred to by the tenant supports their submission that the cat-to-square-metre ratio is acceptable. v. The concern that the cats may interfere with other tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy is speculative. There is no evidence of any complaints by neighbours, nor that the cats have attacked the tenant’s neighbours or other pets in the neighbourhood. vi. No actual damage has occurred to the property. There is no evidence that the cats have a propensity for causing damage. vii. I accept that the tenant is taking appropriate steps to mitigate against the risk of any damage occurring. viii. The tenant has not failed to agree with any reasonable condition, nor have they previously failed to comply with a reasonable condition relating to keeping a pet. The tenant has offered reasonable conditions. ix. The female cat is spayed, the male is neutered. Each is microchipped and vaccinated. The tenant is clearly deeply attached to the cats, who appear to be well cared for.
The owner’s concern that there would be “chaos” if everyone in the complex were allowed pets is speculative, as any request to keep a pet and any application to the Tribunal will be determined on a case-by-case basis and on its own merits.
The sufficiency of the pet bond cannot be a relevant factor, as allowing it to be so would disadvantage tenants in social housing and would be contrary to the purposes of the provision.
The tenant’s liability for damage is not limited to the pet bond. In cases where a pet of a tenant paying income-related rent causes damage deemed the result of carelessness, and the landlord’s insurance does not cover such damage or the property is not insured, the tenant’s liability is limited to four weeks’ market rent, not four weeks of the income-related rent.
Although the market rent is not stated in the agreement, based on the evidence, which includes the size and location of the property, I estimate the market rent to be in the region of $300.00 to $320.00 per week.
Where a pet causes damage deemed intentional or virtually certain, the tenant, regardless of the amount of rent they pay, is liable for the full cost of repair or replacement.
Under section 85(2) of the Act, the Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter, and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations.
Although betterment and depreciation are principles of law, they are not the sole factors in determining the quantum of damages and should be considered with reference to section 85(2).
If during the tenancy the landlord forms the view that the tenant has breached their obligations and that property is not kept in a reasonable state of cleanliness, or has been damaged, they may make an application to the Tribunal for work orders to remedy any breach.
The landlord’s application for an order requiring the tenant to remove the cats is declined.
Taking the above factors into account, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to vary the agreement under section 42D of the Act and allow the tenant to keep the cats with the following conditions: i. The tenant must pay a pet bond of two weeks’ rent, ii. The tenant may keep the two cats at the property, being the subject of the application. If one of these cats passes away, the tenant must seek and obtain the prior written consent of the landlord before obtaining a replacement cat, iii. The tenant must ensure that the cats have access to a litter box, which is regularly changed, and that they have access to adequate food and water. iv. The tenant must have the carpets professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy.
This has been an application brought by the landlord seeking a work order removing the cats. In determining whether one should be granted, the Tribunal has been required to consider the reasonableness of the refusal.
The tenant has not brought a claim that the refusal was unreasonable. There is no jurisdiction to consider awarding exemplary damages against the landlord for refusing consent without reasonable grounds. See section 42E of the Act.
However, had the tenant made a claim, I am satisfied that the landlord acted appropriately and in good faith in bringing this matter before the Tribunal, and has acted fairly. On that basis, exemplary damages would not have been justified. Name suppression
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has been successful and is granted name suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
The landlord is a social housing provider offering affordable rental accommodation to vulnerable people. The tenant falls within that category.
While I am satisfied that the facts and reasoning of this decision are in the public interest, I am not satisfied that this interest necessarily extends to the name of the social housing provider, who, as stated, has acted in good faith in bringing this matter before the Tribunal. Upon careful consideration, I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to depart from the principle of open justice and to exercise the discretion in section 95A(4). The Tribunal also orders suppression of the landlord’s name.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.

The landlord’s application for an order requiring the removal of the cats is declined.

The tenancy agreement is varied to record that the tenant may keep the two cats at the property with the following conditions: i. The tenant must pay a pet bond of two weeks’ rent, ii. The tenant may keep the two cats at the property, being the subject of the application. If one of these cats passes away, the tenant must seek and obtain the prior written consent of the landlord before obtaining a replacement cat, iii. The tenant must ensure that the cats have access to a litter box, which is regularly changed, and that they have access to adequate food and water. iv. The tenant must have the carpets professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy.

If the tenant does not comply with the conditions above, the order varying the agreement allowing the tenant to keep pets is revoked. Proceedings:

The tenant appeared and was supported by their [redacted]. [Landlord representatives] appeared for the landlord.

The tenant is keeping two cats at the property contrary to the terms of the tenancy agreement. The landlord is seeking an order from the Tribunal that they be removed and that the tenant not allow any cats at the property.

The issue in this case is whether the landlord has reasonable grounds to decline a request made by the tenant. Facts

On 06 March 2025, a property manager for the landlord observed cats inside the property.

On 14 March 2025, 7 April 2025, and 11 September 2025, the landlord issued the tenant with 14-day notices to rehome the cats and not allow cats on the property. The landlord states that on each occasion the tenant has failed to comply with the notice.

The landlord has provided tenancy inspection reports dated 26 March 2025, 30 April 2025, and 27 May 2025, which include photographs. The landlord states that on each occasion, the property smelled of urine, the carpet in the main bedroom was urine-stained, and there was evidence of cat litter on the floor.

On 5 June 2025, the landlord issued a 14-day notice to remove carpet stains and repair a hole in kitchen cabinetry. The carpet was cleaned. It does not appear that the hole was related to the keeping of cats.

The landlord, who is a social housing provider and leases the property, sought the views of the owner as to whether the tenant could keep the cat.

The landlord responded: “I would prefer there are no pets at the property. It is an apartment building with no cat door, and they cannot use an open window as it is on the 2nd storey. It is a six-unit apartment building; if everyone had a pet there would be chaos and not fair on the animals. I cannot see how it is fair on the pet living in that sort of situation.”

Following the changes to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act) allowing tenants to make requests to keep pets, the landlord approached the owner again.

The landlord declined the tenant keeping a pet, citing the same

Reasons

previously given.

The tenant had kept the cats without first seeking permission,

The tenant had failed multiple property inspections where carpet stains and odour had been detected,

The carpet was likely to be damaged. They provided a quote for replacing the carpet underlay and carpet for $3,270.60, with replacement of the underly only a lesser amount.

The landlord submitted that as the rent is subsidised, and not a market rent, that a pet bond of two weeks’ rent, equivalent to $204.00, would be insufficient bond to cover any insurance excess that may apply, which they estimated was between $800.00 and $1,000.00 per claim. Although, they stated that the owner’s insurance would not likely cover damage caused by pets.

The landlord stated that the carpet was over six years old and halfway through its useful expected life span. They stated that, should the tenancy end and the carpet require replacement due to damage caused by the tenant’s cats, that the tenant’s liability would be inadequate, and the landlord would suffer a loss.

They stated the property was a small unit on the second floor, with close shared living arrangements with two other units on that floor.

Due to the close proximity of neighbouring units, noise, odour, and other disturbances could easily impact the other tenants and affect their right to quiet enjoyment.

The tenant accepted that they had kept the cats without first seeking the permission of the landlord.

The cats are rescue cats: a female aged two and a half, and a male aged one and a half. The female is spayed, the male is neutered. Each is microchipped and vaccinated.

The tenant states that the cats suffer from medical conditions which mean they are indoor cats only. The tenant stated that even if there were a cat door, they would not use it. They state that, in any event, the cats would likely not venture outside.

The tenant stated that they suffered from mobility issues and that some of the stains were attributable to their accidentally dropping food and beverages on the floor. The tenant stated that the carpets had been professionally cleaned and that there was no evidence of damage. The landlord conceded that no damage had been caused to date but noted that urine crystals had been detected in the carpet.

The tenant denied that the unit was too small to accommodate two cats inside, referring to material on cat-to-square-metre ratios.

The tenant stated that indoor cats are not unusual and that many owners keep their cats inside without issue.

The tenant stated that the cats used litter boxes and that any instances where they had not done so were dealt with quickly.

The tenant stated that they had offered to pay a pet bond, have the carpets cleaned quarterly, and the whole property professionally cleaned annually.

The tenant accepted that if the carpet were damaged that they would be liable subject to depreciation and betterment.

The tenant states they have tried to rehome the cats but that they were returned. The tenant states that if they cannot keep the cats, they will have to be euthanised. Law

From 01 December 2025, tenants may make a written request to keep a pet in a rental property. Landlords cannot unreasonably withhold consent. These rules apply to all residential tenancies, including those commencing prior to 01 December 2025.

In Tenant v Landlord [2026] NZTT 540190, dated 19 May 2026, the Tribunal considered the intention of the recent amendments around pet consent, stating: [24] The pet consent rules are an intentional move away from blanket “no pet” policies and are intended to enable tenants to have pets, while enabling a landlord to decline consent – but only where it is reasonable to do so. [25] The pet consent rules recognise the benefits that humans receive from keeping pets, including by aiding stability and social life for many people and being important for friendship, fellowship, and mental health. The pet consent rules are a deliberate “reversion of the status quo,” a reversal of the presumption against tenants having pets. Parliament intended to make it easier for tenants to have pets. 1

The pet consent provisions are set out in sections 42E, 42F and 42G of the Act.

Section 42F sets out the reasonable grounds for refusing consent, and states: 42F Reasonable grounds for prohibiting tenant from, or refusing tenant consent for, keeping pet. For the purposes of sections 42D and 42E, reasonable grounds for prohibiting a tenant from keeping a pet in a tenancy agreement or refusing consent for a tenant to keep a pet include the following (for example): (a) the premises are not suitable for the pet or pets (for example, because of the size or fencing of the premises, or other unique features of the premises): 1 (10 December 2024) 708 NZPD (Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill – Committee of the House, Chris Bishop) at 8008, (10 December 2024) 708 NZPD (Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill – Third Reading, Chris Bishop) at 8082 (b) a rule or bylaw applying to the premises under this Act or other legislation prohibits the pet or pets from being kept on the premises: (c) the tenant has not complied with relevant bylaws relating to the pet or type of pet: (d) the pet or pets are not suitable for the premises— i. due to the number of pets; or ii. due to their size or type (for example, their species or breed); or iii. due to their propensity for causing damage to premises or disruption to other persons residing in the neighbourhood; or iv. because they include a dog that has been classified as dangerous or menacing under the Dog Control Act 1996; or v. because there is good reason to believe they have previously attacked persons, livestock, or other pets: (e) the tenant has not agreed with a reasonable condition to which the landlord proposes to make the tenancy agreement or the consent subject: (f) the tenant has previously failed to comply with a reasonable condition relating to the tenant keeping a pet.

Section 42G sets out what are considered reasonable conditions. 42G Reasonable conditions relating to tenant keeping pet. (1) For the purposes of sections 42C to 42F, a condition relating to a tenant keeping a pet that is set out in a tenancy agreement or attached to a landlord’s consent must be reasonable having regard to the nature of the premises and the type of pet or pets to which it applies. (2) Reasonable conditions may include the following (for example): (a) a condition that the tenant agree to pay an amount of pet bond set by the landlord in accordance with section 18AA (and agree to a variation of the tenancy agreement under section 13B to that effect): (b) a condition requiring a pet or pets to be restrained while a landlord lawfully enters the premises: (c) if a pet is allowed inside the premises, a condition requiring the carpets in the premises to be cleaned to a professional standard at the end of the tenancy. (3) Subsection (2) is subject to subsection (1).

Under section 18AA of the Act, a landlord can require a pet bond of up to 2 weeks’ rent if the tenant is keeping (or intends to keep) a pet on the premises and the landlord has agreed to allow the pet.

Section 42F is a non-exhaustive list, and all relevant factors should be considered.

In Tenant v Landlord at paragraphs [28] – [32], the Tribunal confirmed a two- stage test: the first limb involves a factual assessment of why consent was withheld and the reasons for it; the second limb is an assessment of the reasonableness of that decision. The Tribunal went on to note that what is reasonable will differ in each case and must be determined with reference to the facts of the case and the text and purpose of the pet consent provisions.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for, including pets. See section 49B (1) of the Act.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is certain. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

Under section 49B (2) and (3) of the Act, a tenant is liable for damage to the premises caused by carelessness. However, if the property is insured, the tenant’s liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks’ rent (or market rent for income-related tenancies). Analysis and decision

While the landlord has provided the tenant clear reasons for their refusal, after conducting an objective assessment, I do not find that the refusal is reasonable in the circumstances.

Considering the factors in section 42F: i. I accept the tenant’s submission that not all cats must have access to an outdoor space, and that, depending on the circumstances, some are solely inside cats. ii. The property does not share any facilities with the tenants of neighbouring units. iii. There are no bylaws preventing the tenant keeping cats. iv. The material referred to by the tenant supports their submission that the cat-to-square-metre ratio is acceptable. v. The concern that the cats may interfere with other tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy is speculative. There is no evidence of any complaints by neighbours, nor that the cats have attacked the tenant’s neighbours or other pets in the neighbourhood. vi. No actual damage has occurred to the property. There is no evidence that the cats have a propensity for causing damage. vii. I accept that the tenant is taking appropriate steps to mitigate against the risk of any damage occurring. viii. The tenant has not failed to agree with any reasonable condition, nor have they previously failed to comply with a reasonable condition relating to keeping a pet. The tenant has offered reasonable conditions. ix. The female cat is spayed, the male is neutered. Each is microchipped and vaccinated. The tenant is clearly deeply attached to the cats, who appear to be well cared for.

The owner’s concern that there would be “chaos” if everyone in the complex were allowed pets is speculative, as any request to keep a pet and any application to the Tribunal will be determined on a case-by-case basis and on its own merits.

The sufficiency of the pet bond cannot be a relevant factor, as allowing it to be so would disadvantage tenants in social housing and would be contrary to the purposes of the provision.

The tenant’s liability for damage is not limited to the pet bond. In cases where a pet of a tenant paying income-related rent causes damage deemed the result of carelessness, and the landlord’s insurance does not cover such damage or the property is not insured, the tenant’s liability is limited to four weeks’ market rent, not four weeks of the income-related rent.

Although the market rent is not stated in the agreement, based on the evidence, which includes the size and location of the property, I estimate the market rent to be in the region of $300.00 to $320.00 per week.

Where a pet causes damage deemed intentional or virtually certain, the tenant, regardless of the amount of rent they pay, is liable for the full cost of repair or replacement.

Under section 85(2) of the Act, the Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter, and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations.

Although betterment and depreciation are principles of law, they are not the sole factors in determining the quantum of damages and should be considered with reference to section 85(2).

If during the tenancy the landlord forms the view that the tenant has breached their obligations and that property is not kept in a reasonable state of cleanliness, or has been damaged, they may make an application to the Tribunal for work orders to remedy any breach.

The landlord’s application for an order requiring the tenant to remove the cats is declined.

Taking the above factors into account, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to vary the agreement under section 42D of the Act and allow the tenant to keep the cats with the following conditions: i. The tenant must pay a pet bond of two weeks’ rent, ii. The tenant may keep the two cats at the property, being the subject of the application. If one of these cats passes away, the tenant must seek and obtain the prior written consent of the landlord before obtaining a replacement cat, iii. The tenant must ensure that the cats have access to a litter box, which is regularly changed, and that they have access to adequate food and water. iv. The tenant must have the carpets professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy.

This has been an application brought by the landlord seeking a work order removing the cats. In determining whether one should be granted, the Tribunal has been required to consider the reasonableness of the refusal.

The tenant has not brought a claim that the refusal was unreasonable. There is no jurisdiction to consider awarding exemplary damages against the landlord for refusing consent without reasonable grounds. See section 42E of the Act.

However, had the tenant made a claim, I am satisfied that the landlord acted appropriately and in good faith in bringing this matter before the Tribunal, and has acted fairly. On that basis, exemplary damages would not have been justified. Name suppression

Both parties seek name suppression.

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

The tenant has been successful and is granted name suppression.

Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.

The landlord is a social housing provider offering affordable rental accommodation to vulnerable people. The tenant falls within that category.

While I am satisfied that the facts and reasoning of this decision are in the public interest, I am not satisfied that this interest necessarily extends to the name of the social housing provider, who, as stated, has acted in good faith in bringing this matter before the Tribunal. Upon careful consideration, I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to depart from the principle of open justice and to exercise the discretion in section 95A(4). The Tribunal also orders suppression of the landlord’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5461831 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5461831 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions