What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5501433 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant, the Tenant’s dog, and the

How much money was awarded in case 5501433?

11 June 2026. 3. The following condi…: $1,700.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5501433?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5501433?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13671699-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5501433 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant, the Tenant’s dog, and the

How much money was awarded in case 5501433?

11 June 2026. 3. The following condi…: $1,700.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5501433?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5501433?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13671699-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5501433 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant, the Tenant’s dog, and the Landlord names and identifying details.

The tenancy agreement between the parties is varied to record that the Tenant may keep the Blue Heeler Cross Dog, named [dog], on the premises, from 11 June 2026.

The following conditions apply: a. Before the dog is allowed at the premises, the Tenant must i. Pay a pet bond of $1,700.00 to the landlord; ii. Provide the landlord with proof that the dog is currently registered with the local authority and micro-chipped. b. The tenant will have the dog desexed by 31 August 2026. c. At the end of the tenancy the tenant must have the carpets in the premises cleaned to a professional standard including treatment for fleas. d. The landlord may arrange an inspection of the premises under section 48(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 before 11 June 2026, for the purpose of documenting the condition of the wooden flooring at the premises.

If the tenant does not comply with the conditions at 3(a) and (b) the order varying the tenancy agreement to allow the tenant to keep the dog as a pet at the premises is revoked.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.

The tenant has applied for an order seeking consent to have a specific pet on the premises, a Blue Heeler Cross, named [the dog].

The landlord, while not opposed to a pet in general, is concerned that these premises are not suitable for this dog and has declined their consent. Because there is evidence that the dog was at the property without the landlord’s consent, they served a 14-day notice on the tenant requiring her to remove the dog from the property. The landlord has also cross applied for a conditional termination order unless the dog is removed, In their application they acknowledge that the dog must be removed unless the Tribunal decides otherwise.

The tenant has confirmed that while the dog has visited the premises on occasion, he is not being kept at the premises, pending the outcome of this application. Background

The tenancy commenced on 9 August 2025 for a fixed term expiring on 6 August 2027. There are 4 tenants at the property with one tenant taking the lead in this application with the consent of her co-tenants. When taking on the tenancy, they had no intention of keeping a pet.

The dog in question is a family pet of one of the tenants. Her family was relocating and could not take the dog with them. So, the tenant “inherited” the dog.

The tenant applied to the landlord for consent to have this specific dog, a Blue Heeler Cross, at the premises. The dog is 11 months old at the date of this decision.

The landlord formally responded on 11 March 2026 declining consent for the following reasons: a. The small size of the fenced part of the property, given its location in a residential-mixed housing suburban zone, making it unsuitable for a young male working farm dog of this size and breed; b. The proximity to properties on three sides, plus two adjacent corner properties, creating the potential for disruption to these neighbours; c. There is no confirmation of what breed the dog has been crossed with, meaning it may be classified as dangerous or menacing under the Dog Control Act 1996; d. The dog has not been de-sexed.

The tenant responded the same day noting the vet’s advice that the dog was too young to be desexed, but she would look to do so at an appropriate time; that the dog was not a pure breed so he would not likely be classified as a dangerous dog (because the cross breed is unknown); the dog is fully vaccinated, micro-chipped and registered. The tenant also noted that the property was fully fenced, and the backyard offered an acceptable amount of roaming space. Given that the dog is a working dog, he will either stay with the tenant’s partner (a co-tenant) at work during the day or be placed in daycare. He will not be left unsupervised for long periods.

Despite discussions, an agreement could not be reached, and the tenant has applied to the Tribunal for orders that she be allowed to keep the dog at the premises. Tenant case

The tenant submits that consent should be granted. While the cross breed of the dog is unknown, the vet has indicated that he could be part boxer. Purebred Blue Heelers are Australian Cattle dogs and are very active and energetic requiring time outside. The tenant and her partner fully intend to ensure that the dog has plenty of time outside and is supervised during the day either at daycare or with the tenant’s partner at work. They would not leave him alone for long hours.

The dog is well-trained, generous, kind, loyal and calm. He is not aggressive, loud, or messy, and does not bark much. He is medium-sized.

The tenants know their neighbours well and checked that they are comfortable with a dog.

The backyard, including the deck and lawn is fully enclosed with adequate space for the dog to roam, and a shaded area, as shown in photos provided in evidence.

The tenant has grown up with dogs and is a responsible dog owner. She takes pride in keeping the premises clean and tidy, as shown in photos provided in evidence. She would continue to maintain the property to that standard and ensure the dog is well looked after and continues to be well-trained.

The tenant has also proposed the following conditions: a. Payment of $1,700 as a pet bond; b. Professional carpet cleaning including flea treatment at the end of the tenancy; c. Desexing the dog at 14 months. Landlord case

The landlord’s concerns relate to the breed of the dog which they do not consider suitable for these premises. They reiterated the concerns set out in their email of 11 March 2026, declining consent. See paragraph 8 above.

Other concerns were also raised at the hearing. Blue Heelers are high energy and require exercise. This dog has been a working farm dog beforehand so likely needs more space to roam. Because the dog is not desexed, there are concerns that the dog may wander and become aggressive or destructive. The premises are in a small neighbourhood and the landlord is concerned that if the dog gets out, it might endanger young children in the neighbourhood.

The landlord has also raised concerns about carpets and wooden floors inside the premises which may be damaged by the dog. Relevant legal considerations

The pet consent rules in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 1 are a recent addition to the RTA and there have been limited cases considered by the Tribunal.

The provisions allow a tenant to make a written request to the landlord to keep a pet. The landlord must then respond in writing setting out their decision. If consent is given, the landlord must specify any reasonable conditions attached to the consent. If consent is declined, the landlord must specify the grounds for the refusal which must not be unreasonable.

Section 42F RTA sets out examples of reasonable grounds for refusing consent 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): 1 Sections 42C-42G RTA (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 RTA provides that a condition for keeping a pet must be reasonable having regard to the nature of the premises and the type of pet to which it applies. Reasonable conditions also include paying a pet bond and, where a pet is allowed inside, requiring the carpets in the premises to be cleaned to a professional standard at the end of the tenancy.

The question to be determined is whether consent can be granted for the tenant to keep the dog at these premises, and if so, on what conditions.

In a recent decision from the Tribunal 2 the Principal Tenancy Adjudicator, summarised the intention of the recent amendments around pet consent, and stated: [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. 34 2 Tenant v Landlord [2026] NZTT 5452836 3 (10 December 2024) 708 NZPD (Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill – Committee of the House, Chris Bishop) at 8008 4 (10 December 2024) 708 NZPD (Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill – Third Reading, Chris Bishop) at 8082 [26] 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.

In relation to the assessment of the particular premises and the proposed pet, the Principal Adjudicator noted that it would be fact dependent and observed: [35] 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. [36] 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. [37] 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. Discussion and findings

The premises are a stand-alone house located on a flat section in a suburban neighbourhood of a small semi-rural town. There are 3 close neighbouring properties. Photos produced by the tenant show that the premises are fully fenced with a locking gate. There is a reasonable sized deck off the lounge area with a shade cover, which leads onto a lawn area down one side of the house. The lawn is a relatively small but when combined with the deck provides outdoor roaming space for the dog.

The landlord has raised concerns for refusing consent to this dog, and the issues to consider are whether those concerns are reasonable and what, if any, reasonable conditions could be imposed to mitigate those concerns. Breed

In relation to the cross breed being unknown, the landlord is concerned that the cross breed could be classified as dangerous or menacing under the Dog Control Act 1996 and relevant local council bylaws. There was no evidence to suggest that the dog has been classified as menacing or dangerous. The tenant noted that the dog is registered and micro-chipped as required which suggests that the dog complies with requirements. The tenant has also agreed to provide proof of registration and micro-chipping for the landlord to address this concern. Size of premises

In relation to the size of the premises, I accept the tenant’s submission that the house provides good amenities for the dog with an outside deck and lawn area adequate for roaming. It is also fully fenced, so the risk of the dog wandering off the property is mitigated. The intention is for the tenant’s partner to take the dog with him each day to work, or to use dog daycare services so that the dog is not left at the premises unsupervised for long periods of time and receives the exercise and socialisation he needs. This mitigates concerns that the outdoor area is too small. Behaviour

The tenant impressed me with her response to the landlord’s concerns. She has grown up with and is knowledgeable about dogs. She emphasized that she is a responsible dog owner and will take full responsibility for the dog and his behaviour. She noted that the dog is fully trained. He is presently staying with the family of her partner and is used to families and children. She notes that there are many dogs in the neighbourhood and any dog might potentially harm a person. It is a risk with any dog, but one that can be managed with appropriate training. She also says that that the neighbours are supportive of a dog. Desexing

The landlord is concerned that the dog is not desexed. Therefore, he may wander and behave in an aggressive or destructive manner. The tenant has taken advice from a vet about desexing. The dog is still quite young and growing. Therefore, the recommendation is not to desex until the dog reaches is 12-18 months. The tenant agrees to desex the dog at 14 months to mitigate this concern. Damage to property

Concerns about damage to wooden floors and carpets at the premises are mitigated with the offer of a pet bond and having the carpets professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy. The tenant also agrees to the landlord inspecting the premises to establish the condition of the wooden floors before a dog is allowed at the property. Summary

The concerns raised by the landlord have merit but, overall, I consider that the conditions proposed and agreed to by the tenant mitigate those concerns. Therefore, I find that it would not be unreasonable for the tenant to keep the specified dog at these premises, applying the conditions discussed at the hearing and agreed to by the tenant. Consent is granted accordingly, and I vary the tenancy agreement to that extent.

It follows that the landlord’s cross application is dismissed.

For completeness and as discussed at the hearing, any pet consent remains subject to the general rules in the RTA. For example, if this dog proves to be disruptive, or unreasonably damages the premises, the landlord may rely on other sections of the RTA to apply to the Tribunal for a remedy. I have also imposed no conditions relating to the tenant’s general obligations to clean the premises, notify the landlord of damage and not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood. Those obligations already exist in the RTA and apply regardless of any order made. Suppression and filing fee

Given that the pet consent provisions are a new and developing area of law, it is reasonable to grant name suppression to both parties. While the tenant has succeeded, consent has not been granted unconditionally. In those circumstances, I do not award reimbursement of the filing fee.

Order