What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5464849?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5464849?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5464849?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5464849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13432568-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5464849?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5464849?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5464849?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5464849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13432568-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 37, 64 Kawaha Point Road, Kawaha Point, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5464849 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Unit/Flat 37, 64 Kawaha Point Road, Kawaha Point, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5464849 — 14-day notice | TenantCheck

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant against the landlords. By the time of the hearing, the only matter the tenant seeks an order on, relates to an early termination of the tenancy.

BACKGROUND

The parties entered into a fixed-term tenancy agreement for a tenancy between 20 November 2025 and 20 November 2026.
The tenancy agreement that has been provided does not include any terms relating to consent to have a pet.
On 23 January 2026 the tenant emailed the landlord requesting to have a small dog on the premises, noting that “I know that I signed a no pets agreement”.
On 2 February 2026 the tenant emailed the landlords as follows: I was just wondering if you had a chance to think about having Pippa here at all. Just as my parents are coming up from a new Plymouth this weekend and would be able to bring her here and help with the dog proofing.
The landlords replied that they would need to check what the body corporate process was, with the tenant replying that she was happy to comply with the body corporate rules.
Ultimately the landlords responded saying: After careful consideration, we’ve decided to stick with our original decision and unfortunately aren’t able to approve pets at the property. While we appreciate your offer regarding an increased bond, this decision is based on the property’s suitability and our long-term arrangements rather than bond or rent considerations. The bond would be around $10k to replace the flooring and we don't think this would be fair on you.
On 10 March 2026 the tenant filed this application with the Tribunal. In the application the tenant indicated her claims were around: a.Healthy Homes Standards. b.Release from the fixed-term tenancy because of failure to approve the dog and the requirement for a $10,000 bond. c.Exemplary damages for failing advise the premises were on the market for sale.
A video hearing was convened on 13 April 2026. Both parties were in attendance.

POSITION OF PARTIES

At the start of the hearing, I asked the tenant what orders she wants the Tribunal to make. The tenant said that the only order she wants is to be released from the fixed-term tenancy. I expressly asked the tenant if she wanted any orders regarding the pet consent, but she confirmed that she is not.
The tenant states that she wants to end the tenancy early, because the landlords have declined to allow the tenant to have a dog at the tenancy, the pet bond, and have advertised the tenancy for sale.
In response the landlords said that the property was listed in 2024, and when they did not have interest it was withdrawn from the market. The advertisement was placed on Listed.co.nz, but they omitted to have the listing taken down when they decided against the sale. The landlords state that if they were going to sell the property they would not have entered into fixed-term tenancies either with this tenant or the tenant prior. Once the listing was raised with them, they took it down.
In relation to the request for the dog, the landlords say that they had good reasons not to approve the dog, the property was fully furnished, and their interpretation of the Body Corporate Rules is that the fencing would not be allowed. The landlords agree they could have worded the discussion around the bond more clearly.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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.

ANALYSIS

The Tenant seeks an order that the Tribunal terminate the tenancy on the grounds of the landlord’s failure to approve consent for a dog, the pet bond required, and failing to notify the tenant that the property was on the market.
The tenancy is a fixed-term tenancy, therefore, there is an expectation that the tenancy will run for the agreed period, in this case until November 2026.
There are only limited ways that the term of the tenancy can be shortened, that is, generally, either by agreement of the parties (which, in fact, there is as I will discuss below), or by order of the Tribunal.
Given the reasons advanced by the tenant for terminating the tenancy, the application would fall within section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act. That is a general termination provision. Section 56 allows the Tribunal to order a termination of the tenancy when: a.There has been a breach of an obligation under the tenancy agreement or RTA; and b.If the breach is capable of remedy, I notice has been given requiring the other party to remedy the breach within 14 days, and the party fails to do so; and c.The breach is of such a nature, or such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse termination.
In this case I cannot see that the landlord’s failure to agree to have a pet is a breach. There is no express provision in the RTA that confirms a tenant can have a pet on the premises in all situations, rather the RTA allows a tenant to have a pet if the landlord consents to one. The RTA further confirms that a landlord cannot decline consent for a pet without reasonable grounds.
In this case the landlords have explained the reasons why they would not allow a pet, and strictly they have complied with the obligations on them when the tenant requested consent. What this now boils down to, is that the tenant disagrees with the reasons the landlord took for declining the dog.
If the tenant disagrees with the landlord’s decision to decline consent, then she has a remedy, and that is to seek orders from the Tribunal that she can have the pet. If the tenant requested that, then the Tribunal would look to see if the decision was reasonable.
But in this case the tenant was clear, she is not seeking an order that a pet be allowed at the premises, so that is as far as this matter can go.
What remains is that the landlord has complied with the their obligations around pets, that is, when the tenant requested consent, they considered the request, and responded to the request in writing with reasons. Therefore, there is no breach on the part of the landlord.
The tenant also submits that the bond request is unreasonable. The maximum bond that can be requested for a pet bond, is an additional two weeks of rental. Section 18AA relates to pet bonds and confirms that a landlord acts unlawfully (so exemplary damages could be ordered) if they request a pet bond in excess of the two-week maximum.
Again the relevant email is as follows: After careful consideration, we’ve decided to stick with our original decision and unfortunately aren’t able to approve pets at the property. While we appreciate your offer regarding an increased bond, this decision is based on the property’s suitability and our long-term arrangements rather than bond or rent considerations. The bond would be around $10k to replace the flooring and we don't think this would be fair on you.
I agree with the landlord that the email regarding the bond could have been worded better, but I find it did not breach section 18AA, because this is not a case where the landlord has required a bond greater than two weeks. Importantly, the landlord declined the tenant to have a pet, and because of that, the tenant was not required to pay a pet bond. What the landlord was doing was simply saying what the ‘bond’ could have been. If the landlord had approved the pet, and then was saying to the tenant she needed to pay $10,000 in bond, then that would be a breach.
Finally, the tenant submits that the landlord had not advised the premises were on the market. The landlord states that what the tenant was referring to, was an old listing from 2024, but when the property did not sell, it was removed from the market, but they missed taking down this listing from the internet. The landlords explained that the listing remains live, potentially for years, until the listing is expressly removed. Once the tenant raised the issue, the listing was taken down.
Section 47 applies, this provision relates to a landlord putting the premises on the market, and holds in part: (2) When a landlord is offering residential premises as available for letting, the landlord shall inform prospective tenants if the premises are on the market for the purposes of sale or other disposition.
In this case, I accept the landlord’s evidence, which was to the extent that the premises were on the market in late 2024, but that they had removed it from the market prior to this tenancy starting. I accept that the on-line listing was mistakenly not taken down, but the premises were not on the market for sale. The tenant has not described activity that would suggest the property was for sale, such as prospective purchasers coming through the property, and the fact that the listing was taken down also does not support that the property remained on the market.
However, even if I were wrong in that finding, or my finding about the pet consent and pet bond, to establish grounds to terminate the tenancy under section 56, if the breach was capable of remedy, then the tenant needed to provide a notice to remedy, allowing the landlord 14 days to remedy the breach, and she has not done that. So even if there were breaches, without the landlord also failing to comply with the 14- day remedy notice, there is no basis to terminate the tenancy under section 56.
I conclude by noting that the landlord is agreeable to end the tenancy early, they just want to have another tenancy lined up first. That is not an unreasonable position to take. I encourage the parties to continue to engage on this basis.
For those reasons, the tenants application to terminate cannot succeed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant against the landlords. By the time of the hearing, the only matter the tenant seeks an order on, relates to an early termination of the tenancy.

BACKGROUND

The parties entered into a fixed-term tenancy agreement for a tenancy between 20 November 2025 and 20 November 2026.
The tenancy agreement that has been provided does not include any terms relating to consent to have a pet.
On 23 January 2026 the tenant emailed the landlord requesting to have a small dog on the premises, noting that “I know that I signed a no pets agreement”.
On 2 February 2026 the tenant emailed the landlords as follows: I was just wondering if you had a chance to think about having Pippa here at all. Just as my parents are coming up from a new Plymouth this weekend and would be able to bring her here and help with the dog proofing.
The landlords replied that they would need to check what the body corporate process was, with the tenant replying that she was happy to comply with the body corporate rules.
Ultimately the landlords responded saying: After careful consideration, we’ve decided to stick with our original decision and unfortunately aren’t able to approve pets at the property. While we appreciate your offer regarding an increased bond, this decision is based on the property’s suitability and our long-term arrangements rather than bond or rent considerations. The bond would be around $10k to replace the flooring and we don't think this would be fair on you.
On 10 March 2026 the tenant filed this application with the Tribunal. In the application the tenant indicated her claims were around: a.Healthy Homes Standards. b.Release from the fixed-term tenancy because of failure to approve the dog and the requirement for a $10,000 bond. c.Exemplary damages for failing advise the premises were on the market for sale.
A video hearing was convened on 13 April 2026. Both parties were in attendance.

POSITION OF PARTIES

At the start of the hearing, I asked the tenant what orders she wants the Tribunal to make. The tenant said that the only order she wants is to be released from the fixed-term tenancy. I expressly asked the tenant if she wanted any orders regarding the pet consent, but she confirmed that she is not.
The tenant states that she wants to end the tenancy early, because the landlords have declined to allow the tenant to have a dog at the tenancy, the pet bond, and have advertised the tenancy for sale.
In response the landlords said that the property was listed in 2024, and when they did not have interest it was withdrawn from the market. The advertisement was placed on Listed.co.nz, but they omitted to have the listing taken down when they decided against the sale. The landlords state that if they were going to sell the property they would not have entered into fixed-term tenancies either with this tenant or the tenant prior. Once the listing was raised with them, they took it down.
In relation to the request for the dog, the landlords say that they had good reasons not to approve the dog, the property was fully furnished, and their interpretation of the Body Corporate Rules is that the fencing would not be allowed. The landlords agree they could have worded the discussion around the bond more clearly.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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.

ANALYSIS

The Tenant seeks an order that the Tribunal terminate the tenancy on the grounds of the landlord’s failure to approve consent for a dog, the pet bond required, and failing to notify the tenant that the property was on the market.
The tenancy is a fixed-term tenancy, therefore, there is an expectation that the tenancy will run for the agreed period, in this case until November 2026.
There are only limited ways that the term of the tenancy can be shortened, that is, generally, either by agreement of the parties (which, in fact, there is as I will discuss below), or by order of the Tribunal.
Given the reasons advanced by the tenant for terminating the tenancy, the application would fall within section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act. That is a general termination provision. Section 56 allows the Tribunal to order a termination of the tenancy when: a.There has been a breach of an obligation under the tenancy agreement or RTA; and b.If the breach is capable of remedy, I notice has been given requiring the other party to remedy the breach within 14 days, and the party fails to do so; and c.The breach is of such a nature, or such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse termination.
In this case I cannot see that the landlord’s failure to agree to have a pet is a breach. There is no express provision in the RTA that confirms a tenant can have a pet on the premises in all situations, rather the RTA allows a tenant to have a pet if the landlord consents to one. The RTA further confirms that a landlord cannot decline consent for a pet without reasonable grounds.
In this case the landlords have explained the reasons why they would not allow a pet, and strictly they have complied with the obligations on them when the tenant requested consent. What this now boils down to, is that the tenant disagrees with the reasons the landlord took for declining the dog.
If the tenant disagrees with the landlord’s decision to decline consent, then she has a remedy, and that is to seek orders from the Tribunal that she can have the pet. If the tenant requested that, then the Tribunal would look to see if the decision was reasonable.
But in this case the tenant was clear, she is not seeking an order that a pet be allowed at the premises, so that is as far as this matter can go.
What remains is that the landlord has complied with the their obligations around pets, that is, when the tenant requested consent, they considered the request, and responded to the request in writing with reasons. Therefore, there is no breach on the part of the landlord.
The tenant also submits that the bond request is unreasonable. The maximum bond that can be requested for a pet bond, is an additional two weeks of rental. Section 18AA relates to pet bonds and confirms that a landlord acts unlawfully (so exemplary damages could be ordered) if they request a pet bond in excess of the two-week maximum.
Again the relevant email is as follows: After careful consideration, we’ve decided to stick with our original decision and unfortunately aren’t able to approve pets at the property. While we appreciate your offer regarding an increased bond, this decision is based on the property’s suitability and our long-term arrangements rather than bond or rent considerations. The bond would be around $10k to replace the flooring and we don't think this would be fair on you.
I agree with the landlord that the email regarding the bond could have been worded better, but I find it did not breach section 18AA, because this is not a case where the landlord has required a bond greater than two weeks. Importantly, the landlord declined the tenant to have a pet, and because of that, the tenant was not required to pay a pet bond. What the landlord was doing was simply saying what the ‘bond’ could have been. If the landlord had approved the pet, and then was saying to the tenant she needed to pay $10,000 in bond, then that would be a breach.
Finally, the tenant submits that the landlord had not advised the premises were on the market. The landlord states that what the tenant was referring to, was an old listing from 2024, but when the property did not sell, it was removed from the market, but they missed taking down this listing from the internet. The landlords explained that the listing remains live, potentially for years, until the listing is expressly removed. Once the tenant raised the issue, the listing was taken down.
Section 47 applies, this provision relates to a landlord putting the premises on the market, and holds in part: (2) When a landlord is offering residential premises as available for letting, the landlord shall inform prospective tenants if the premises are on the market for the purposes of sale or other disposition.
In this case, I accept the landlord’s evidence, which was to the extent that the premises were on the market in late 2024, but that they had removed it from the market prior to this tenancy starting. I accept that the on-line listing was mistakenly not taken down, but the premises were not on the market for sale. The tenant has not described activity that would suggest the property was for sale, such as prospective purchasers coming through the property, and the fact that the listing was taken down also does not support that the property remained on the market.
However, even if I were wrong in that finding, or my finding about the pet consent and pet bond, to establish grounds to terminate the tenancy under section 56, if the breach was capable of remedy, then the tenant needed to provide a notice to remedy, allowing the landlord 14 days to remedy the breach, and she has not done that. So even if there were breaches, without the landlord also failing to comply with the 14- day remedy notice, there is no basis to terminate the tenancy under section 56.
I conclude by noting that the landlord is agreeable to end the tenancy early, they just want to have another tenancy lined up first. That is not an unreasonable position to take. I encourage the parties to continue to engage on this basis.
For those reasons, the tenants application to terminate cannot succeed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5464849 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 37, 64 Kawaha Point Road, Kawaha Point,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5464849 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 37, 64 Kawaha Point Road, Kawaha Point,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

POSITION OF PARTIES

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

POSITION OF PARTIES

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions