What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5528957 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5528957?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5528957?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5528957?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14136683-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5528957 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5528957?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5528957?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5528957?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14136683-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit G02, 44 Clayburn Road, Glen Eden, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5528957 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

This tenancy commenced on 9 July 2021. The applicant seeks termination under section 56 for breaches capable of remedy, namely the condition of the premises and the presence of a dog without landlord consent.
In support of the application, the landlord has provided two 14-day notices. Although the notices appear to refer to breaches occurring on different dates, both notices are dated Friday, 19 June 2026. The applicant's representative advised that she had only recently taken over the matter and was not aware of the details or background to the situation.
Each of the two breach notices refers to attachments, with different attachments identified in relation to each notice. None of those attachments were provided with the application.
What I was able to gather from the landlord during the hearing was that the tenant has a dog at the premises and that, because of the presence of the dog, which appears to have been there for some considerable time, the landlord considers it unsafe to conduct inspections.
The tenant briefly attended the hearing. She was repeatedly disruptive, stated that the dog belonged to her dying mother, asked rhetorically whether the Tribunal wanted her to kill the dog, and then disconnected from the hearing.
I asked the landlord to provide further detail about the application. However, I was not given a chronological or coherent explanation of how the issue arose, when or how the landlord became aware of the alleged breaches, or what steps the landlord had taken in response. Instead, the evidence and submissions were limited to general assertions that there is a dog at the premises, that the landlord has concerns about safety, and that the tenant is antisocial, with reference also being made to her conduct during the hearing.
While an application of this nature, supported by appropriate evidence and properly presented, may be capable of succeeding, the level of detail provided in this case is scant and does not substantiate the application before the Tribunal.
During the hearing, I directed the applicant to provide the attachments referred to in both breach notices. Following the hearing, the landlord provided a single inspection report dated 22 January 2026. That report contains one photograph showing the presence of a dog. It does not, without further evidence or explanation, establish the circumstances relied upon in support of the termination application. Further, the applicant has not complied with the direction given at the hearing to provide the full set of attachments referred to across both breach notices.
The quality of the application and the evidence presented in support of it is unacceptable, particularly from a professional landlord. It is the responsibility of the applicant to establish its case on the balance of probabilities. The applicant has not done so.
If the applicant considers there are grounds to do so, it may apply for a rehearing and set out the grounds upon which that application is made. If a rehearing is granted, the applicant will need to provide detailed evidence and submissions explaining the relevant chronology, the alleged breaches, the steps taken in response to those breaches, and the factual and legal basis for the orders sought.
I accept that there is a real possibility that, had this case been properly evidenced and presented, the application may have succeeded. However, it was not. The consequence of the order sought is the termination of a person's tenancy. The Tribunal must therefore be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities and on the evidence before it, that there is a proper basis for making that order. On the evidence presented in this case, I cannot be so satisfied.
For those reasons, the application is dismissed.

Reasons

This tenancy commenced on 9 July 2021. The applicant seeks termination under section 56 for breaches capable of remedy, namely the condition of the premises and the presence of a dog without landlord consent.

In support of the application, the landlord has provided two 14-day notices. Although the notices appear to refer to breaches occurring on different dates, both notices are dated Friday, 19 June 2026. The applicant's representative advised that she had only recently taken over the matter and was not aware of the details or background to the situation.

Each of the two breach notices refers to attachments, with different attachments identified in relation to each notice. None of those attachments were provided with the application.

What I was able to gather from the landlord during the hearing was that the tenant has a dog at the premises and that, because of the presence of the dog, which appears to have been there for some considerable time, the landlord considers it unsafe to conduct inspections.

The tenant briefly attended the hearing. She was repeatedly disruptive, stated that the dog belonged to her dying mother, asked rhetorically whether the Tribunal wanted her to kill the dog, and then disconnected from the hearing.

I asked the landlord to provide further detail about the application. However, I was not given a chronological or coherent explanation of how the issue arose, when or how the landlord became aware of the alleged breaches, or what steps the landlord had taken in response. Instead, the evidence and submissions were limited to general assertions that there is a dog at the premises, that the landlord has concerns about safety, and that the tenant is antisocial, with reference also being made to her conduct during the hearing.

While an application of this nature, supported by appropriate evidence and properly presented, may be capable of succeeding, the level of detail provided in this case is scant and does not substantiate the application before the Tribunal.

During the hearing, I directed the applicant to provide the attachments referred to in both breach notices. Following the hearing, the landlord provided a single inspection report dated 22 January 2026. That report contains one photograph showing the presence of a dog. It does not, without further evidence or explanation, establish the circumstances relied upon in support of the termination application. Further, the applicant has not complied with the direction given at the hearing to provide the full set of attachments referred to across both breach notices.

The quality of the application and the evidence presented in support of it is unacceptable, particularly from a professional landlord. It is the responsibility of the applicant to establish its case on the balance of probabilities. The applicant has not done so.

If the applicant considers there are grounds to do so, it may apply for a rehearing and set out the grounds upon which that application is made. If a rehearing is granted, the applicant will need to provide detailed evidence and submissions explaining the relevant chronology, the alleged breaches, the steps taken in response to those breaches, and the factual and legal basis for the orders sought.

I accept that there is a real possibility that, had this case been properly evidenced and presented, the application may have succeeded. However, it was not. The consequence of the order sought is the termination of a person's tenancy. The Tribunal must therefore be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities and on the evidence before it, that there is a proper basis for making that order. On the evidence presented in this case, I cannot be so satisfied.

For those reasons, the application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5528957 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit G02, 44 Clayburn Road, Glen Eden, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5528957 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit G02, 44 Clayburn Road, Glen Eden, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.