What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5469409 about?

The tribunal order states: The name and all identifying details of the Tenant and Landlords are

How much money was awarded in case 5469409?

the premises. 3. The following condi…: $1,400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5469409?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5469409?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13632702-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5469409 about?

The tribunal order states: The name and all identifying details of the Tenant and Landlords are

How much money was awarded in case 5469409?

the premises. 3. The following condi…: $1,400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5469409?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5469409?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13632702-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5469409 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5469409. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
the premises. 3. The following conditions apply: (a)Before the dog is allowed at the premises, the Tenant must: i. Payin	$1,400.00		the premises. 3. The following conditions apply: (a)Before the dog is allowed at the premises, the Tenant must: i. Payin

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5469409. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
the premises. 3. The following conditions apply: (a)Before the dog is allowed at the premises, the Tenant must: i. Payin	$1,400.00		the premises. 3. The following conditions apply: (a)Before the dog is allowed at the premises, the Tenant must: i. Payin

Order

The name and all identifying details of the Tenant and Landlords are suppressed.
The tenancy agreement between the parties is varied to record that the Tenant may keep one German Shorthaired Pointer on the premises.
The following conditions apply: (a)Before the dog is allowed at the premises, the Tenant must: i. Paying a pet bond of $1,400.00 to the landlord. ii. Install a gate on the deck stairs, so the deck will then be fully enclosed. (b)Monitor the dog for jumping tendencies, and if necessary, install an additional barrier on the deck railing to increase the railing height. (c)At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must remove the gate on the stairs and remove all protective barriers at her expense.
If the Tenant doe not comply with the conditions at 3(a) the order varying the tenancy agreement to allow the Tenant to keep a pet is revoked.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant, seeking consent to have a pet on the premises, a German Shorthaired Pointer (GSP) dog. The landlords are not opposed to a pet in general; their concern is simply that these premises would not be suitable for a GSP.

BACKGROUND

The background in this case is not in dispute.
The tenancy commenced on 30 September 2024, and is a periodic tenancy. The tenant lives in the premises with a flatmate.
On 20 February 2026, the tenant wrote to the landlords, seeking consent for having a GSP dog on the premises.
The landlord responded on 23 February 2026, after doing research on that breed of dog, raising concerns given the recognised nature of GSP’s, which are active dogs. Particular concerns were raised about the premises not being fully fenced with limited outside space for the dog to run around on.
The tenant responded the following day, recognising that this breed was known to be high energy, which is why this breed was chosen, because the tenant was active herself.
The later emails show the parties actively engaging with each other over the following weeks in discussing any concerns and potential mitigations that could be introduced. Ultimately, an agreement could not be reached, and so the tenant has applied to the Tribunal for orders that she be allowed to keep the GSP on the premises.
A hearing was convened by video today, with all parties in attendance.

TENANTS CASE

The tenant submits that consent should be granted to allow her to keep a GSP on the premises. The tenant considers the premises would be suitable, and given she is an active person with outdoor exercise, that would address the activity needs of this type of dog.
The tenant has proposed the following conditions: a. Paying a pet bond of $1,400.00 b. Installing a gate on the deck so the deck would then be enclosed. c. Installing an additional barrier to increase the height of the deck should the dog present a jumping risk.
In terms of the exercise requirements, the tenant confirmed that she is not planning on exercising the dog at home, again with reference to her active lifestyle.

LANDLORDS CASE

The landlord’s concern relates to this specific breed of dog, which they do not consider to be a suitable match for these premises. These dogs are known as being high-energy and having a tendency to jump. The premises are not on a flat section with a limited usable outside area.
The landlords confirmed they would not be opposed to a smaller dog being approved.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The pet consent rules are a recent addition to the RTA, and there have been limited cases considered by the Tribunal under those new provisions.
The provisions allow a tenant to make a written request to the landlord to keep a pet, and if such a request is made, the landlord must respond in writing setting out their decision and conditions required, or if consent is declined, the reason why consent was declined, but a landlord cannot unreasonably refuse consent.
Section 42F of the RTA sets out the provisions relating to reasonable grounds to refuse consent for keeping a pet, which are as follows: 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): (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 provisions around what reasonable conditions for keeping a pet may be, and confirms that reasonable conditions may be required having regard to “the nature of the premises and the type of pet...to which it applies.”

ANALYSIS

The question to be determined is whether consent can be granted for the tenant to keep a GSP dog at these specific premises, and if so, what the conditions would be.
Again, the issue taken by the landlord is that the premises would be unsuited to this particular type of dog.
I note a recent decision from the Tribunal which related to pet consent refusal, being Tenant v Landlord [2026] NZTT 5452836. That was a case considered by the Principal Tenancy Adjudicator, who summarised the intention of the recent amendments around pet consent, where he stated: 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. 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 2 Parliament has balanced these new permissive rules with other rules enabling a landlord to impose reasonable conditions (including a pet bond), or to withhold consent altogether where there are reasonable grounds to do so. What is clear though is that the starting point for these new rules is that pets are permitted, with the landlord only able to refuse consent, or impose conditions, where reasonable.
I agree with that summary.
In relation to the assessment around the particular premises and the proposed pet, the Principal noted that the assessment will be fact dependent, but observed: Dogs provide a useful example for why this case-by-case assessment is required. A property may not necessarily be unsuitable for a dog just because it is unfenced or small. An unfenced and/or small property may still be suitable for a small, well-behaved, house-trained dog but may be unsuitable for another. Just as a large and fenced property might be suitable for one dog, but unsuitable for a different dog. Likewise, the property will not necessarily be unsuitable due to the proximity of neighbours and/or the potential for barking. Again, what is required is an assessment of the premises, its neighbourhood, and of the dog, its breed, its training and its propensity to bark. This will always be a case-by-case assessment. Decisions like this, and other decisions of the Tribunal and Courts, can provide guidance as to the principles that apply to any pet consent assessment, but the factors that need to be considered, and the outcome of the assessment in each case, will be fact dependant.
These premises are located in an urban location. Photographs have been provided, which show a substantial deck which wraps around the exterior of the premises. There are external stairs leading onto the deck, but the parties explained that those stairs are the only way onto the deck. Otherwise at the back of the premises is a modest-sized grassed area leading off the deck.
When assessing if consent can be reasonably refused, consideration must be taken as to what mitigations can be implemented to address any landlord concerns. To put that another way, if there was a factor that would mean that consent could reasonably be withheld, if that factor could be suitably addressed by way of a condition, then the factor may no longer be relevant to decline consent. 1 (10 December 2024) 708 NZPD (Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill – Committee of the House, Chris Bishop) at 8008 2 (10 December 2024) 708 NZPD (Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill – Third Reading, Chris Bishop) at 8082
In this case the tenant has proposed two conditions, that is to install a gate on the stairs which would mean the deck and small grassed area would be fully enclosed. The landlords are concerned about the dog jumping over the fence, the tenant has proposed that if this dog shows a propensity to jump, she will install a higher barrier around the deck.
In my view, what the tenant has proposed addresses those two factors of concern, that is, the open deck and the risk of the dog jumping over the deck.
What remains is whether an active and energetic dog, would be suited to these premises. On balance, it could not be concluded that the dog would be unsuited. I accept the tenant’s evidence that she herself has an active lifestyle, and that is why she wants this sort of dog – to keep up with her. I accept that the dog would most likely obtain the exercise it needs, which mitigates against the size of the tenancy being a determinative factor.
As I indicated at the hearing today, both parties have impressed me with the extent to which they have researched and carefully considered what would be needed for a GSP in these premises. Both parties are coming at this issue, only wanting the best for any animal in these premises. The concerns the landlord has raised all have merit, but overall, I consider that they can be mitigated.
For those reasons, I find that it would not be unreasonable for the tenant to have a GSP in these premises, applying the conditions the tenant has proposed. I vary the tenancy agreement to that extent. Consent to have a GSP is granted.

NAME SUPPRESSION

Both parties have applied for name suppression. Given the pet consent provisions are a new and developing area of the law, it is reasonable to grant name suppression for both parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5469409 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5469409 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CASE

LANDLORDS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CASE

LANDLORDS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions