What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4989348?

The tribunal order states: Joanne Loretta Smith is permitted to keep her pet Chihuahua “Bruce” at the

How much money was awarded in case 4989348?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4989348?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4989348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11015489-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4989348?

The tribunal order states: Joanne Loretta Smith is permitted to keep her pet Chihuahua “Bruce” at the

How much money was awarded in case 4989348?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4989348?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4989348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11015489-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 7, 391 Lake Road, Hauraki, Auckland 0622 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4989348 — 14-day notice

Order

Joanne Loretta Smith is permitted to keep her pet Chihuahua “Bruce” at the tenancy address.
Joanne Loretta Smith is not and was not in breach of her obligations to her landlord by keeping Bruce at the property. She does not need to remove Bruce from the premises.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held today.
Ms Smith is seeking a declaration from the Tribunal as to whether she is permitted to keep her pet chihuahua Bruce at her tenancy address and whether she can have another dog at the property.
Ms Smith suffers from complex medical needs, she has suffered a brain haemorrhage which affects her mobility and some cognitive functions. In 2021 she was offered (and subsequently accepted) a near new ground floor mobility apartment with a large courtyard by Kāinga Ora. Ms Smith says that she fully disclosed to the tenancy manager at the time, and before she accepted the property, that she had two older rescue chihuahua dogs, Lily and Bruce. Ms Smith says the tenancy manager who signed her up to the tenancy knew of the dogs, and she recalls that they discussed that she would be permitted to keep the dogs, but that if the dogs died then she would need to seek permission from the landlord to obtain another dog.
Sadly, Lily died of old age last year. Ms Smith notified her landlord. Ms Smith wanted to get another dog in May this year and enquired of the landlord what the process would be. When the property manager enquired as to whether or not Ms Smith would be allowed another dog to replace Lily, the property manager found out that Ms Smith was not supposed to have a pet at the Kaing Ora complex as the complex was “pet free”. As a result, Ms Smith received a verbal breach notice and on the 28 August 2024 she received a written notice from Kāinga Ora requiring her to remove Bruce from the property within 14 days and have him rehomed. Ms Smith was devastated. Bruce is 11 years old and her constant companion, she applied to the Tribunal to seek a declaration as to whether she would be allowed to keep Bruce or not.
Kāinga Ora confirms that it appeared that they knew right from the beginning of the tenancy that Ms Smith owned dogs, they are recorded in inspection reports and on maintenance logs. Kāinga Ora says that it was an oversight that Ms Smith was allowed to move into the premises which were subject to a no pets policy. Kāinga Ora confirmed that it had never had a complaint about Ms Smith’s dogs nor had any concerns for the dogs. Their position is that if they do not require strict adherence to their no pets policy that it will create a precedence for other tenants.
Having considered all of the evidence I am satisfied Ms smith disclosed that she had pets to Kāinga Ora, and that they agreed to her tenancy on the basis that she had pets Lily and Bruce. Whilst Ms Smith did not sign a pet agreement, this appears to have been an administration error on Kāinga Ora’s behalf not Ms Smith and does not affect the reality of the situation, which was that Ms Smith told Kāinga Ora about her dogs and that they granted her a tenancy knowing that and that they have permitted her to keep the dogs for three years without any issues.
It is fair and reasonable that Ms Smith should be able to keep Bruce. She is not in breach of her agreement.
The Tribunal cannot make any decision about whether Ms Smith can keep another dog in the future, that would need to be the subject of a further application, once the animal that Ms Smith wishes to adopt is identified. This is because the Tribunal would need to consider the pets health, temperament and breed.
I observed in my oral decision to the parties that it would be helpful if Kāinga Ora could ask potential tenants to fill out a description about who lives in the house and whether the tenants have any pets before placing them in a tenancy. This would make it very clear about what was disclosed by tenants before a tenancy and whether additional forms such as pet forms are needed.

Order

Joanne Loretta Smith is permitted to keep her pet Chihuahua “Bruce” at the tenancy address.
Joanne Loretta Smith is not and was not in breach of her obligations to her landlord by keeping Bruce at the property. She does not need to remove Bruce from the premises.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held today.
Ms Smith is seeking a declaration from the Tribunal as to whether she is permitted to keep her pet chihuahua Bruce at her tenancy address and whether she can have another dog at the property.
Ms Smith suffers from complex medical needs, she has suffered a brain haemorrhage which affects her mobility and some cognitive functions. In 2021 she was offered (and subsequently accepted) a near new ground floor mobility apartment with a large courtyard by Kāinga Ora. Ms Smith says that she fully disclosed to the tenancy manager at the time, and before she accepted the property, that she had two older rescue chihuahua dogs, Lily and Bruce. Ms Smith says the tenancy manager who signed her up to the tenancy knew of the dogs, and she recalls that they discussed that she would be permitted to keep the dogs, but that if the dogs died then she would need to seek permission from the landlord to obtain another dog.
Sadly, Lily died of old age last year. Ms Smith notified her landlord. Ms Smith wanted to get another dog in May this year and enquired of the landlord what the process would be. When the property manager enquired as to whether or not Ms Smith would be allowed another dog to replace Lily, the property manager found out that Ms Smith was not supposed to have a pet at the Kaing Ora complex as the complex was “pet free”. As a result, Ms Smith received a verbal breach notice and on the 28 August 2024 she received a written notice from Kāinga Ora requiring her to remove Bruce from the property within 14 days and have him rehomed. Ms Smith was devastated. Bruce is 11 years old and her constant companion, she applied to the Tribunal to seek a declaration as to whether she would be allowed to keep Bruce or not.
Kāinga Ora confirms that it appeared that they knew right from the beginning of the tenancy that Ms Smith owned dogs, they are recorded in inspection reports and on maintenance logs. Kāinga Ora says that it was an oversight that Ms Smith was allowed to move into the premises which were subject to a no pets policy. Kāinga Ora confirmed that it had never had a complaint about Ms Smith’s dogs nor had any concerns for the dogs. Their position is that if they do not require strict adherence to their no pets policy that it will create a precedence for other tenants.
Having considered all of the evidence I am satisfied Ms smith disclosed that she had pets to Kāinga Ora, and that they agreed to her tenancy on the basis that she had pets Lily and Bruce. Whilst Ms Smith did not sign a pet agreement, this appears to have been an administration error on Kāinga Ora’s behalf not Ms Smith and does not affect the reality of the situation, which was that Ms Smith told Kāinga Ora about her dogs and that they granted her a tenancy knowing that and that they have permitted her to keep the dogs for three years without any issues.
It is fair and reasonable that Ms Smith should be able to keep Bruce. She is not in breach of her agreement.
The Tribunal cannot make any decision about whether Ms Smith can keep another dog in the future, that would need to be the subject of a further application, once the animal that Ms Smith wishes to adopt is identified. This is because the Tribunal would need to consider the pets health, temperament and breed.
I observed in my oral decision to the parties that it would be helpful if Kāinga Ora could ask potential tenants to fill out a description about who lives in the house and whether the tenants have any pets before placing them in a tenancy. This would make it very clear about what was disclosed by tenants before a tenancy and whether additional forms such as pet forms are needed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4989348 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 7, 391 Lake Road, Hauraki, Auckland 0622

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4989348 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 7, 391 Lake Road, Hauraki, Auckland 0622

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions