What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5170491?

The tribunal order states: Brynne Arthur Sage is breaching his tenancy agreement with Kāinga Ora–

How much money was awarded in case 5170491?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5170491?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5170491?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11703012-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5170491?

The tribunal order states: Brynne Arthur Sage is breaching his tenancy agreement with Kāinga Ora–

How much money was awarded in case 5170491?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5170491?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5170491?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11703012-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 2, 14 Norman Street, Nawton, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5170491 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.

The landlord has applied for a conditional termination of the tenancy under section 55(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, due to substantial damage being caused by the tenant’s breach of having more than one pet dog on the premises.

Mr Sage accepts that currently he has two dogs on the premises, “Simber” and “Thunder”. He accepted that this is a breach of his tenancy agreement. Mr Sage stated that it is his intention to re-home one of the dogs, “Simber”. Mr Sage is waiting for a friend to take the dog.

The Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities representative produced a photograph which shows two dogs in the yard, and the yard to be virtually devoid of any vegetation. It appears from the photograph that the dogs have spread dirt from the yard onto the common driveway, beyond Mr Sage’s fence.

The Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities representative stated that at the most recent tenancy inspection there was an overwhelming ammonia smell inside and outside the premises caused by dog urine. The inside of the premises was heavily soiled with dog hair.

Mr Sage stated that he had since had the carpet cleaned. He also stated that the yard had always been barren.

A report provided by Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities as part of their application states that the fence has also been damaged, partially by the dogs constantly jumping at it.

On the balance of probabilities I am satisfied that substantial damage has been caused at the property directly by Mr Sage breaching his tenancy agreement by having more than one dog on the premises.

Section 55(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) allows the Tribunal to make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has caused, or has permitted any other person to cause, or has threatened to cause, substantial damage to the premises;

Section 55(1A) of the RTA states that “the Tribunal may, instead of making a final termination order for the non-payment of rent under subsection (1)(a), make a conditional order if, but only if, it is satisfied that...” and certain conditions are set out.

These subsections make it clear that conditional terminations are only available for rent breaches. The Tribunal does not have a power to order a conditional termination for breaches relating to damage or substantial damage to a premises.

Terminating a tenancy is a final remedy and if the landlord seeks this they must make the application unequivocally and under the correct section of the Act.

This has not occurred in this case.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.

Mr Sage stated that he had since had the carpet cleaned. He also stated that the yard had always been barren.

A report provided by Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities as part of their application states that the fence has also been damaged, partially by the dogs constantly jumping at it.

On the balance of probabilities I am satisfied that substantial damage has been caused at the property directly by Mr Sage breaching his tenancy agreement by having more than one dog on the premises.

Terminating a tenancy is a final remedy and if the landlord seeks this they must make the application unequivocally and under the correct section of the Act.

This has not occurred in this case.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5170491 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Unit 2, 14 Norman Street, Nawton, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5170491 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Unit 2, 14 Norman Street, Nawton, Hamilton 3200

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