What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5469669?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Arihi Hine Anne Paniora Erihe and Dorian William Ford

How much money was awarded in case 5469669?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5469669?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5469669?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13416473-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5469669?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Arihi Hine Anne Paniora Erihe and Dorian William Ford

How much money was awarded in case 5469669?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5469669?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5469669?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13416473-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

61A Alabaster Drive, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5469669 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5469669 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

The tenancy of Arihi Hine Anne Paniora Erihe and Dorian William Ford Manatoga at 61A Alabaster Drive, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 is terminated, and possession is granted to Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited As Agent For S. Singh & S. Kaur immediately.

Arihi Hine Anne Paniora Erihe and Dorian William Ford Manatoga must pay Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited As Agent For S. Singh & S. Kaur $28.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 9 April 2026. The tenant did not.

The landlord claims the tenant has breached their obligations by keeping a dog at the premises without the landlord’s consent. The landlord seeks an order terminating the tenancy, because the tenant has not removed the dog within a reasonable period after being asked by the landlord.

As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The law

Section 42C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states when a tenant may keep a pet. It reads as follows: 42CWhen tenant may keep pet (1)A tenant may keep a pet on the premises – (a) If the tenancy agreement provides that the tenant may keep the pet or the landlord gives written consent to the tenant keeping the pet; and (b) In accordance with any reasonable conditions set out in the tenancy agreement or attached to the consent (see section 42G regarding reasonable conditions).

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. 1

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. 2

In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 [23 September 2020], the District Court held that the following factors are relevant to an assessment whether it is inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 56(1). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 56(1)(b). d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed e. The conduct of the landlord f. The gravity of the breach g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach Analysis

The landlord submitted photographs and a video of a dog at the premises. It is a medium – large, brown dog. The dog is chained up in some of the photographs and video.

The landlord gave evidence the video and one photograph were taken on 13 February 2026. The other photograph was taken on 16 March 2026 during a routine inspection. The landlord submitted a copy of the routine inspection. The dog can be seen in photograph number 58 lying on the front deck.

The tenant sent the landlord an email on 5 February 2026, advising that a family member had been looking after the premises while the tenant was away. The tenant states the dog belongs to their family member and has been removed. The fact that the dog is present in photographs of the premises taken on 16 March 2026 negates this claim by the tenant.

On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the tenant is keeping a dog at the premises. The tenancy agreement does not permit the tenant to keep a dog, and the landlord has not given their written consent for the tenant to keep a dog. Therefore, I find the tenant has committed a breach of section 42C RTA.

The breach is capable of remedy, because the tenant could remove the dog from the premises. The landlord sent the tenant two 14-day notices on 5 February 2026 and 27 February 2026, requiring the tenant to remove the dog. The dog is present in photographs of the premises taken on 16 March 2026. Therefore, I am convinced the tenant has not remedied the breach within a reasonable period, being no less than 14 days from the dates of the landlord’s notices.

I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy for the following reasons: a. The history of the tenancy. The tenancy began on 4 July 2025. The tenant is not in rent arrears or water arrears however, there appears to be some damage to the premises that has accrued during the tenancy. For example, there are a number of small holes in the walls in bedroom 1. The kitchen cabinets also have a long, deep scratch in them. b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. The landlord has issued two 14-day notices, which the tenant has failed to comply with. The landlord has warned the tenant that failure to remedy the breach may result in further action to terminate the tenancy. Despite these warnings, the tenant has not removed the dog. c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. The landlord has been asking the tenant to remove the dog for two months. The tenant has not complied with the landlord’s requests. The tenant has also tried to deceive the landlord by advising them on 5 February 2026 that the dog belongs to family members and has been removed, which is clearly not the case. Given these circumstances, I find the tenant is unlikely to comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberate. I find the breach to be deliberate. The tenant has purposefully obtained a dog and kept it at the premises without seeking the landlord’s written permission first. The RTA provides a process whereby tenants can request to keep a pet. The tenant has not followed this process, nor have they paid a pet bond. e. The conduct of the landlord. The landlord has acted reasonably and fairly towards the tenant in respect of the issue, only seeking termination as a last resort. f. The gravity of the breach. The breach is serious. Dogs have the potential to cause damage to a premises, which is why the RTA provides for a pet bond to be paid if permission is given for a tenant to have a dog. In this case, no pet bond has been paid. This means the landlord has no assurance that they will be able to quickly recover any repair costs associated with damage caused by the dog. Further, the premises do not appear suitable for a medium – large sized dog, because they are not fenced.

Taking all of the above matters into account, I find termination to be a proportionate response to the breach. Filing fee

Because Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited As Agent For S. Singh & S. Kaur has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5469669 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 9 April 2026. The tenant did not.

As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The law

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. 1

The landlord submitted photographs and a video of a dog at the premises. It is a medium – large, brown dog. The dog is chained up in some of the photographs and video.

Taking all of the above matters into account, I find termination to be a proportionate response to the breach. Filing fee

Because Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited As Agent For S. Singh & S. Kaur has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5469669 — Tenancy dispute at 61A Alabaster Drive, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5469669 — Tenancy dispute at 61A Alabaster Drive, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions