What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4985870?

The tribunal order states: The tenant shall:

How much money was awarded in case 4985870?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4985870?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4985870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11343626-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4985870?

The tribunal order states: The tenant shall:

How much money was awarded in case 4985870?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4985870?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4985870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11343626-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11B Charwell Place, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4985870 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenant shall: a. Remove dogs from the property so that no more than two remain by 7 February 2025. b. Enter into a dog contract for the two remaining dogs with the landlord by 7 February 2025. c. Remove the caravan from the premises or move it to the rear of the premises on land for the tenant’s exclusive use by 14 February 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant had applied for an adjournment on the grounds that he had not been able to file a cross-application. This was declined as the Tribunal’s Case Conference Direction of 26 November 2024 specifically provided that the tenant must file his cross-application by 10 December 2024. As discussed at the hearing, the tenant may still file his own application. The landlord’s claims
The landlord has applied for an order under section 77(2)(l) RTA requiring the tenant to reduce the number of dogs at the premises to two, enter into a dog contract, and remove or relocate a caravan currently on communal land. The evidence
The landlord provided evidence that: a. The landlord requested the tenant on 26 February 2024 to rehome the puppies the tenant had at the premises and remove the caravan he had parked on communal land at the front of the premises. b. The landlord gave the tenant a 14-day breach letter on 26 July 2024 requiring the tenant to remove all dogs but two from the premises and remove the caravan by 15 August 2024. c. The tenant was in breach of clause 32 of the tenancy agreement which provides: “You are not allowed to keep dogs or other animals at the premises.” d. The tenant has not entered into a dog contract with the landlord which would record the terms on which the landlord agreed to the tenant retaining two dogs at the property. e. The local council requires a dog owner to have a permit to keep three or more dogs on a property. By having six dogs on the premises for the last year, the tenant was in breach of clause 36 of the tenancy agreement which provides: “You must comply with any local council by-laws...” f. The tenant has placed a “caravan wreck” on communal land in front of the premises which is damaging the lawn and is attracting complaints from neighbours. The landlord claimed that this was in breach of clause 16 of the tenancy agreement which requires the tenant to keep the grounds tidy and not damage the premises. g. The landlord agrees to the caravan being relocated to the rear of the premises to land for the tenant’s exclusive use. h. The landlord does not agree to the caravan being relocated to the front of the premises where it will need to be up against the dwelling and will cause deterioration to its fabric. i. The landlord was not seeking termination at present, but an order requiring removal of four dogs and either removal of the caravan or its relocation to the rear of the premises onto an area for the exclusive use of the tenant.
The tenant gave evidence as follows: a. He was trying to sell the four puppies which are now a year old but has not had any success, despite reducing the price. b. The caravan is not warranted but he believes it is registered. It stores his late father’s personal possessions and is used by him as a “hobby room”. c. It is on a shared, communal area of land which no one uses. Its presence on the land is “not bothering anyone”. Discussion and decision
The presence of six adult dogs on the property which are unregistered and not microchipped is a breach of the tenancy agreement and council bylaws. It is reasonable that the landlord’s consent to two dogs remaining is subject to the tenant entering into a dog contract.
The tenant has no right to insist on the caravan remaining on communal property. The landlord is entitled to insist upon its removal or its relocation to the rear of the premises.
It is therefore appropriate that the Tribunal issues the order sought by the landlord.
The tenant has been given a lengthy period within which to comply with the landlord’s breach notice. It is time that he took action and remedied the breaches within the reasonable time limits imposed.
The landlord has filed its application and sought an order from the Tribunal to bring home to the tenant the necessity of complying with the terms of his tenancy agreement. As explained to the tenant at the hearing, if he does not comply with the Tribunal’s order, the landlord will apply for an order terminating his tenancy because of his continued breaches.
The tenant needs to understand that if he does not comply with this order and continues to breach his tenancy agreement, the landlord’s application for termination is likely to be successful. That would mean the tenant losing his home of eight years. It is not an outcome presently desired by the landlord. It is one that would have serious consequences for the tenant.

Order

The tenant shall: a. Remove dogs from the property so that no more than two remain by 7 February 2025. b. Enter into a dog contract for the two remaining dogs with the landlord by 7 February 2025. c. Remove the caravan from the premises or move it to the rear of the premises on land for the tenant’s exclusive use by 14 February 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant had applied for an adjournment on the grounds that he had not been able to file a cross-application. This was declined as the Tribunal’s Case Conference Direction of 26 November 2024 specifically provided that the tenant must file his cross-application by 10 December 2024. As discussed at the hearing, the tenant may still file his own application. The landlord’s claims
The landlord has applied for an order under section 77(2)(l) RTA requiring the tenant to reduce the number of dogs at the premises to two, enter into a dog contract, and remove or relocate a caravan currently on communal land. The evidence
The landlord provided evidence that: a. The landlord requested the tenant on 26 February 2024 to rehome the puppies the tenant had at the premises and remove the caravan he had parked on communal land at the front of the premises. b. The landlord gave the tenant a 14-day breach letter on 26 July 2024 requiring the tenant to remove all dogs but two from the premises and remove the caravan by 15 August 2024. c. The tenant was in breach of clause 32 of the tenancy agreement which provides: “You are not allowed to keep dogs or other animals at the premises.” d. The tenant has not entered into a dog contract with the landlord which would record the terms on which the landlord agreed to the tenant retaining two dogs at the property. e. The local council requires a dog owner to have a permit to keep three or more dogs on a property. By having six dogs on the premises for the last year, the tenant was in breach of clause 36 of the tenancy agreement which provides: “You must comply with any local council by-laws...” f. The tenant has placed a “caravan wreck” on communal land in front of the premises which is damaging the lawn and is attracting complaints from neighbours. The landlord claimed that this was in breach of clause 16 of the tenancy agreement which requires the tenant to keep the grounds tidy and not damage the premises. g. The landlord agrees to the caravan being relocated to the rear of the premises to land for the tenant’s exclusive use. h. The landlord does not agree to the caravan being relocated to the front of the premises where it will need to be up against the dwelling and will cause deterioration to its fabric. i. The landlord was not seeking termination at present, but an order requiring removal of four dogs and either removal of the caravan or its relocation to the rear of the premises onto an area for the exclusive use of the tenant.
The tenant gave evidence as follows: a. He was trying to sell the four puppies which are now a year old but has not had any success, despite reducing the price. b. The caravan is not warranted but he believes it is registered. It stores his late father’s personal possessions and is used by him as a “hobby room”. c. It is on a shared, communal area of land which no one uses. Its presence on the land is “not bothering anyone”. Discussion and decision
The presence of six adult dogs on the property which are unregistered and not microchipped is a breach of the tenancy agreement and council bylaws. It is reasonable that the landlord’s consent to two dogs remaining is subject to the tenant entering into a dog contract.
The tenant has no right to insist on the caravan remaining on communal property. The landlord is entitled to insist upon its removal or its relocation to the rear of the premises.
It is therefore appropriate that the Tribunal issues the order sought by the landlord.
The tenant has been given a lengthy period within which to comply with the landlord’s breach notice. It is time that he took action and remedied the breaches within the reasonable time limits imposed.
The landlord has filed its application and sought an order from the Tribunal to bring home to the tenant the necessity of complying with the terms of his tenancy agreement. As explained to the tenant at the hearing, if he does not comply with the Tribunal’s order, the landlord will apply for an order terminating his tenancy because of his continued breaches.
The tenant needs to understand that if he does not comply with this order and continues to breach his tenancy agreement, the landlord’s application for termination is likely to be successful. That would mean the tenant losing his home of eight years. It is not an outcome presently desired by the landlord. It is one that would have serious consequences for the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4985870 — Tenancy dispute at 11B Charwell Place, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4985870 — Tenancy dispute at 11B Charwell Place, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions