What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5005971?

The tribunal order states: Selina Joy Mai-Tini Hepana Tuhua must remove the Rottweiler dog Chino, from

How much money was awarded in case 5005971?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5005971?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5005971?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11074867-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5005971?

The tribunal order states: Selina Joy Mai-Tini Hepana Tuhua must remove the Rottweiler dog Chino, from

How much money was awarded in case 5005971?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5005971?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5005971?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11074867-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 301, 120 Point Chevalier Road, Point Tenancy Tribunal Case 5005971 — 14-day notice

Order

Selina Joy Mai-Tini Hepana Tuhua must remove the Rottweiler dog Chino, from the property by Sunday 15 December 2024 and provide confirmation that he has been permanently re-homed.
If the tenant fails to comply with Order 1 above, then the landlord may reapply to the Tribunal for an order ending the tenancy because of the breach.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord indicated at the hearing that the application was for termination of the tenancy, for breach of the tenant’s obligations but clarified afterwards that the application was only for an order directing the tenant to remover her dog by 15 December 2024.
The landlord requested that the order clarify that if the tenant did not remove the dog by this date then a further application for termination was likely to follow.

Should the orders requested be made?

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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The tenant has breached their obligations by having a large rottweiler dog at the promises, despite this being a breach of the tenancy agreement (which requires her to obtain permission before having any pet at the unit) and knowing that she did not have that permission.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 16 August 2024 requiring her to remove the dog permanently, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. The dog, Chino, is 11 months old and remains at the property and Ms Tuhua does not want to remove him. She explained that he really helped her with her depression and anxiety issues and was also a really good companion for her. She does not believe that it is reasonable that she is required to remove him and has started the process of requesting a transfer to a property where a large dog is permitted. She provided medial evidence supporting her plea that Chino is permitted to remain.
The evidence confirms that the premises Ms Tuhua is renting is a one-bedroom unit on the third floor of a 4 storey complex. The complex houses elderly and vulnerable tenants. The landlord has had complaints about the dog barking and other residents have expressed concerns about the safety of the dog as it gets older.
While the Tribunal will no longer rubber stamp applications to terminate tenancies because of pets that are not permitted, it will do so in situations where that is a fair and reasonable option.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate this tenancy because. • the tenant was required to get permission to have the dog and she did not, •the premises are not suitable for a large dog as they are on the third floor of a multi storey complex, and do not have an outside area where the dog can be kept •the landlords has had complaints about the dog. •It is also relevant that the landlord is a social housing provider that rents a number of units, both in this complex and nationwide. As a matter of public policy, the landlord requires adherence to its policies regarding dogs. In other words, to refuse to terminate this tenancy would send a message to all other tenants that they do not need to first obtain permission and can get large potentially dangerous dogs and house them in unsuitable premises.
Despite finding that it would be inequitable to refuse the tenancy if Chino is not removed by 15 December 2024 and confirming this orally at the hearing, I am amending that conclusion at the landlord’s request to an order directing that this occur and noting that if it does not the landlord is able to reapply for the termination order.
Ms Tuhua is to provide medical and as much other evidence as she can gather together supporting her request for a transfer to a dog friendly property.
The landlord explained this evidence needs to be provided to MSD who consider such transfer requests and the evidence supporting them.

Order

Selina Joy Mai-Tini Hepana Tuhua must remove the Rottweiler dog Chino, from the property by Sunday 15 December 2024 and provide confirmation that he has been permanently re-homed.
If the tenant fails to comply with Order 1 above, then the landlord may reapply to the Tribunal for an order ending the tenancy because of the breach.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord indicated at the hearing that the application was for termination of the tenancy, for breach of the tenant’s obligations but clarified afterwards that the application was only for an order directing the tenant to remover her dog by 15 December 2024.
The landlord requested that the order clarify that if the tenant did not remove the dog by this date then a further application for termination was likely to follow.

Should the orders requested be made?

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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The tenant has breached their obligations by having a large rottweiler dog at the promises, despite this being a breach of the tenancy agreement (which requires her to obtain permission before having any pet at the unit) and knowing that she did not have that permission.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 16 August 2024 requiring her to remove the dog permanently, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. The dog, Chino, is 11 months old and remains at the property and Ms Tuhua does not want to remove him. She explained that he really helped her with her depression and anxiety issues and was also a really good companion for her. She does not believe that it is reasonable that she is required to remove him and has started the process of requesting a transfer to a property where a large dog is permitted. She provided medial evidence supporting her plea that Chino is permitted to remain.
The evidence confirms that the premises Ms Tuhua is renting is a one-bedroom unit on the third floor of a 4 storey complex. The complex houses elderly and vulnerable tenants. The landlord has had complaints about the dog barking and other residents have expressed concerns about the safety of the dog as it gets older.
While the Tribunal will no longer rubber stamp applications to terminate tenancies because of pets that are not permitted, it will do so in situations where that is a fair and reasonable option.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate this tenancy because. • the tenant was required to get permission to have the dog and she did not, •the premises are not suitable for a large dog as they are on the third floor of a multi storey complex, and do not have an outside area where the dog can be kept •the landlords has had complaints about the dog. •It is also relevant that the landlord is a social housing provider that rents a number of units, both in this complex and nationwide. As a matter of public policy, the landlord requires adherence to its policies regarding dogs. In other words, to refuse to terminate this tenancy would send a message to all other tenants that they do not need to first obtain permission and can get large potentially dangerous dogs and house them in unsuitable premises.
Despite finding that it would be inequitable to refuse the tenancy if Chino is not removed by 15 December 2024 and confirming this orally at the hearing, I am amending that conclusion at the landlord’s request to an order directing that this occur and noting that if it does not the landlord is able to reapply for the termination order.
Ms Tuhua is to provide medical and as much other evidence as she can gather together supporting her request for a transfer to a dog friendly property.
The landlord explained this evidence needs to be provided to MSD who consider such transfer requests and the evidence supporting them.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5005971 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Unit 301, 120 Point Chevalier Road, Point

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5005971 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Unit 301, 120 Point Chevalier Road, Point

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the orders requested be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the orders requested be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions