What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5131828?

The tribunal order states: Alexis Patricia Pompey must permanently remove the dog from the tenancy

How much money was awarded in case 5131828?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5131828?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5131828?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11450727-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5131828?

The tribunal order states: Alexis Patricia Pompey must permanently remove the dog from the tenancy

How much money was awarded in case 5131828?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5131828?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5131828?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11450727-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Vickerman Street, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5131828 — 14-day notice

Order

Alexis Patricia Pompey must permanently remove the dog from the tenancy premises by Tuesday 4 March 2025.
If the tenant fails to permanently remove the dog within 2 working days of the due dates the tenancy at 6 Vickerman Street, Otara, Auckland 2023 will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant was called twice but she did not answer the calls to her phone. I am satisfied she knew about the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy because the tenant has a dog at the tenancy premises, the unit where she lives.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable – very unfair - to refuse to terminate. 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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant breached her obligations by having a dog at the unit. I have been provided with a copy of a letter sent in October 2024 which explains that the tenant is not allowed a dog at the premises and why.
On 30 October 2024 the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant but the breach was not remedied within the required period. Because the tenant can remove the dog, I have considered this as a breach capable of remedy.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy. These are: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The landlord provided me with a photo taken in 2023 which shows a very similar dog to the one in the photo taken on 13 January 2025. Both photos show a dog at the unit. The latest shows the dog tied to a pole by the front door.
I know the tenant was advised in October 2024 that her request to have a dog was declined. She was served a 14 day notice. The dog was still there on 13 January 2025. This application was filed and served on the tenant. A housing services manager (HSM) gave evidence at the hearing and confirmed the dog was at the house at an inspection on 15 January 2025. The HSM has also seen the dog more recently because it can be seen from the street when it is tied up by the front door.
It seems most likely to me there has been a persistent failure by the tenant to remove the dog after repeated warnings, and that is unlikely the tenant will comply with the tenancy obligations in the future without an order.
The HSM said that the dog has behaved aggressively at the two recent visits to the unit. When the HSM went to there to arrange the January inspection the dog was inside the house and charged the front door, making the door handle rattle. It appeared the tenant could not control the dog and the tenant spoke to them through a window. During the inspection on 15 January 2025 the dog was shut inside the bathroom and it barked aggressively throughout the inspection. At the end of the inspection the dog barked aggressively and kept charging at the front door.
From this, it seems most likely to me the breach by the tenant has been deliberate. The dog’s aggressive behaviour concerns me and elevates this to a situation where termination is a proportionate response to the breach. I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
Despite my finding that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, I am satisfied the tenant should be given one last chance to permanently remove the dog rather than lose her home. I have granted a conditional termination. See section 78(3) RTA.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order is enforceable for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) RTA.
Suppression is not allowed because there is public interest in the management of social housing.

Order

Alexis Patricia Pompey must permanently remove the dog from the tenancy premises by Tuesday 4 March 2025.
If the tenant fails to permanently remove the dog within 2 working days of the due dates the tenancy at 6 Vickerman Street, Otara, Auckland 2023 will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant was called twice but she did not answer the calls to her phone. I am satisfied she knew about the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy because the tenant has a dog at the tenancy premises, the unit where she lives.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable – very unfair - to refuse to terminate. 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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant breached her obligations by having a dog at the unit. I have been provided with a copy of a letter sent in October 2024 which explains that the tenant is not allowed a dog at the premises and why.
On 30 October 2024 the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant but the breach was not remedied within the required period. Because the tenant can remove the dog, I have considered this as a breach capable of remedy.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy. These are: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The landlord provided me with a photo taken in 2023 which shows a very similar dog to the one in the photo taken on 13 January 2025. Both photos show a dog at the unit. The latest shows the dog tied to a pole by the front door.
I know the tenant was advised in October 2024 that her request to have a dog was declined. She was served a 14 day notice. The dog was still there on 13 January 2025. This application was filed and served on the tenant. A housing services manager (HSM) gave evidence at the hearing and confirmed the dog was at the house at an inspection on 15 January 2025. The HSM has also seen the dog more recently because it can be seen from the street when it is tied up by the front door.
It seems most likely to me there has been a persistent failure by the tenant to remove the dog after repeated warnings, and that is unlikely the tenant will comply with the tenancy obligations in the future without an order.
The HSM said that the dog has behaved aggressively at the two recent visits to the unit. When the HSM went to there to arrange the January inspection the dog was inside the house and charged the front door, making the door handle rattle. It appeared the tenant could not control the dog and the tenant spoke to them through a window. During the inspection on 15 January 2025 the dog was shut inside the bathroom and it barked aggressively throughout the inspection. At the end of the inspection the dog barked aggressively and kept charging at the front door.
From this, it seems most likely to me the breach by the tenant has been deliberate. The dog’s aggressive behaviour concerns me and elevates this to a situation where termination is a proportionate response to the breach. I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
Despite my finding that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, I am satisfied the tenant should be given one last chance to permanently remove the dog rather than lose her home. I have granted a conditional termination. See section 78(3) RTA.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order is enforceable for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) RTA.
Suppression is not allowed because there is public interest in the management of social housing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5131828 — 14-day notice at 6 Vickerman Street, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5131828 — 14-day notice at 6 Vickerman Street, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions