What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5080208?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5080208?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5080208?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5080208?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11512217-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5080208?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5080208?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5080208?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5080208?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11512217-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Eileen Newey Place, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5080208 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the video hearing on 3 March 2025.
The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. All calls went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given.
The tenancy commenced on 24 April 2024.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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 landlord says that tenant has breached their obligations by having more pets at the premises than allowed for in the tenancy agreement. The tenancy agreement provides that the tenant may have one ridgeback dog called “Noodles” and two cats called “Haere Mai and Awhiawhi.”
The landlord served a number of 14 day breach notices under s.56 RTA on the tenant. First notice
The landlord served a notice on the tenant on 30 August 2024. The notice states that the landlord has received complaints “alleging excessive dog barking coming from your property.” The notice goes onto say that if the landlord received any further complaints of this nature, they would be forced to take further action which may result in the termination of the tenancy.
Section 56(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) requires any breach notice to give the other party a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days commencing on the day on which the notice is given, to remedy the breach. The notice served on the tenant does not provide the tenant with any time frame for remedying the breach and accordingly the notice is invalid. Second notice
A further 14 day breach notice was served on the tenants dated 12 November 2024. The notice states that the tenants have more pets than allowed for under the tenancy agreement and that the tenants had until 26 November 2024 (14 days) within which to remove the pets. Third notice
A further notice was served on the tenants. The notice is dated 20 November 2024. The notice states that the tenants have breached their tenancy by allowing more pets in the house than approved in your tenancy agreement. The notice requires the tenants to provide proof that the pets had been desexed (verifiable by a registered veterinarian) or the removal of the pets from the premises. The breach was to be remedied by 5 December 2024. The tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
The notice dated 12 November 2024 is essentially superseded by the notice dated 20 November 2024, as they relate to the same issue and cover a similar time frame. Having received the third notice, I consider that it would be reasonable for the tenant to assume that the notice dated 20 November 2024 is the notice with which they must comply.
The tenancy agreement does not require the pets to be desexed. The tenancy application notes completed by the tenant prior to the commencement of the tenancy states that all the pets are desexed. The application notes do not form part of the tenancy agreement and the tenancy agreement does not state that the pets agreed to by the parties, must be desexed.
It is clear that the number of pets allowed for under the terms of the tenancy agreement was limited. I consider that term to be reasonable. Anything less would allow the tenant to have unlimited pets at the premises.
When the matter was raised with the tenants by the landlord, they said that they would foster the kittens out.
The landlord went to the premises on 26 November 2024 and the three extra kittens were all still present. The landlord told the tenants that the three kittens would have to be removed.
The landlord said that the last time that the three kittens were seen was on 26 November 2024. That date remains within the 14 day period during which the tenant was required to remove the kittens by the third notice.
The landlord said that they went to the property last week to carry out an inspection. The landlord could see a cat feeding bowl and the dog. She could not see the cats or the three kittens.
The Tribunal is being asked to terminate a tenancy. It is not clear from the landlord’s evidence whether the three kittens remain at the premises. The bowl may have been for the permitted pets. I do not consider that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to show that it is more likely than not, that the tenant remains in breach of their obligations regarding the number of pets and the application is dismissed.
I make no order regarding the filing fee.
The landlord applied for name suppression. As the landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing, the application is dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the video hearing on 3 March 2025.
The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. All calls went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given.
The tenancy commenced on 24 April 2024.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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 landlord says that tenant has breached their obligations by having more pets at the premises than allowed for in the tenancy agreement. The tenancy agreement provides that the tenant may have one ridgeback dog called “Noodles” and two cats called “Haere Mai and Awhiawhi.”
The landlord served a number of 14 day breach notices under s.56 RTA on the tenant. First notice
The landlord served a notice on the tenant on 30 August 2024. The notice states that the landlord has received complaints “alleging excessive dog barking coming from your property.” The notice goes onto say that if the landlord received any further complaints of this nature, they would be forced to take further action which may result in the termination of the tenancy.
Section 56(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) requires any breach notice to give the other party a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days commencing on the day on which the notice is given, to remedy the breach. The notice served on the tenant does not provide the tenant with any time frame for remedying the breach and accordingly the notice is invalid. Second notice
A further 14 day breach notice was served on the tenants dated 12 November 2024. The notice states that the tenants have more pets than allowed for under the tenancy agreement and that the tenants had until 26 November 2024 (14 days) within which to remove the pets. Third notice
A further notice was served on the tenants. The notice is dated 20 November 2024. The notice states that the tenants have breached their tenancy by allowing more pets in the house than approved in your tenancy agreement. The notice requires the tenants to provide proof that the pets had been desexed (verifiable by a registered veterinarian) or the removal of the pets from the premises. The breach was to be remedied by 5 December 2024. The tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
The notice dated 12 November 2024 is essentially superseded by the notice dated 20 November 2024, as they relate to the same issue and cover a similar time frame. Having received the third notice, I consider that it would be reasonable for the tenant to assume that the notice dated 20 November 2024 is the notice with which they must comply.
The tenancy agreement does not require the pets to be desexed. The tenancy application notes completed by the tenant prior to the commencement of the tenancy states that all the pets are desexed. The application notes do not form part of the tenancy agreement and the tenancy agreement does not state that the pets agreed to by the parties, must be desexed.
It is clear that the number of pets allowed for under the terms of the tenancy agreement was limited. I consider that term to be reasonable. Anything less would allow the tenant to have unlimited pets at the premises.
When the matter was raised with the tenants by the landlord, they said that they would foster the kittens out.
The landlord went to the premises on 26 November 2024 and the three extra kittens were all still present. The landlord told the tenants that the three kittens would have to be removed.
The landlord said that the last time that the three kittens were seen was on 26 November 2024. That date remains within the 14 day period during which the tenant was required to remove the kittens by the third notice.
The landlord said that they went to the property last week to carry out an inspection. The landlord could see a cat feeding bowl and the dog. She could not see the cats or the three kittens.
The Tribunal is being asked to terminate a tenancy. It is not clear from the landlord’s evidence whether the three kittens remain at the premises. The bowl may have been for the permitted pets. I do not consider that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to show that it is more likely than not, that the tenant remains in breach of their obligations regarding the number of pets and the application is dismissed.
I make no order regarding the filing fee.
The landlord applied for name suppression. As the landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing, the application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5080208 — 14-day notice at 8 Eileen Newey Place, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5080208 — 14-day notice at 8 Eileen Newey Place, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions