What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5174491?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5174491?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5174491?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5174491?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11534494-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5174491?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5174491?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5174491?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5174491?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11534494-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 146 Halsey Drive, Lynfield, Auckland 1042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5174491 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing that took place by telephone.
The landlord seeks to terminate the tenancy on the basis that the tenant is keeping a pet dog at the property.
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 s 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
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 tenancy agreement sets out the following in respect of pets: And
The landlord says that an inspection was done on 28 January 2025 and the tenant had a large dog, like a rottweiler, at the premises. The pet was caged at the time. The landlord says that there was no damage observed from the pet but there was a dog smell. I was told how the landlord owner had received complaints from the neighbours about the dog barking but there was no probative evidence of this or further detail.
The property is one of two adjoining units. The landlord says that the property is too small for a dog of this size and it is not fenced. The landlord does not want the dog at the premises. A 14-day notice to remedy was served on 28 January 2025. The issue was not remedied at a further inspection on 21 February 2025.
The tenant does not dispute she has a dog. It remains at the property. The tenant says it is a well-trained dog that does not bark unless someone comes to the premises. She says her plan is to move out or she will have to stay and try and make an arrangement with the landlord to keep the dog. She also mentioned looking for a place for the dog to go. She says that she is actively looking for a place. She says that she did ask if she could keep the dog on 28 January 2025 but only recently (after 25 February 2025) feedback was given orally that the owner did not want a pet in the premises. The tenant says she did offer previously (in a different context) to put up a temporary fence. Analysis
The tenancy agreement sets out that the tenant is not permitted to keep a pet without the landlord’s agreement. I am satisfied that the tenant is keeping a pet dog at the premises. Despite a request the tenant has made to keep the dog the landlord has recently refused this.
A number of recent Tribunal decisions have considered if a ‘no pets’ clause is in fact enforceable. By way of a selection of decisions on this subject see: [2023] NZTT 4421925 and [2025] NZTT 4936033, 4937674 and [2023] NZTT 4639420, 4595629.
A “no pets” clause is not straightforward because the RTA presently makes no specific reference to pets. Changes to the law relating to pets are anticipated shortly in the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024, but these amendments are not presently in force.
Ultimately here I find that I do not have to determine whether this pet clause is enforceable. This is because, even if it was enforceable, I find it would not be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy at this stage.
This is because the 14-day notice given by the landlord expressly said that the tenant could seek written permission from the landlord to keep her pet. She did this immediately. She then did not hear from the landlord on this issue until after the second property inspection and after she sent a follow up email on 25 February. She then only heard orally sometime after that her requested permission had been refused, and the landlord’s response was simply that he wanted the pet off the property as soon as possible.
I consider that where a tenancy agreement provides that a tenant may make a request of a landlord to keep a pet (and/or has been formally invited to do so) such consent should not be unreasonably withheld and reasons for such a refusal should be given. I also consider that where a tenant has been invited to make a request to keep a pet, a timely response ought to be given so that the tenant can make subsequent arrangements based on that response. That was not given here. The dog is not presently causing damage (I am not satisfied that a generic statement that there was a dog smell amounts to damage) and complaints from neighbours are insufficiently proven.
Given the circumstances of this case I consider it equitable to afford the tenant a further opportunity to consider her position including locating alternative accommodation for herself and the dog, or rehoming the dog.
The application to terminate the tenancy is dismissed.
The landlord sought name suppression but this is not granted as the landlord has not been successful and I see no other reason to grant suppression in this application.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing that took place by telephone.
The landlord seeks to terminate the tenancy on the basis that the tenant is keeping a pet dog at the property.
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 s 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
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 tenancy agreement sets out the following in respect of pets: And
The landlord says that an inspection was done on 28 January 2025 and the tenant had a large dog, like a rottweiler, at the premises. The pet was caged at the time. The landlord says that there was no damage observed from the pet but there was a dog smell. I was told how the landlord owner had received complaints from the neighbours about the dog barking but there was no probative evidence of this or further detail.
The property is one of two adjoining units. The landlord says that the property is too small for a dog of this size and it is not fenced. The landlord does not want the dog at the premises. A 14-day notice to remedy was served on 28 January 2025. The issue was not remedied at a further inspection on 21 February 2025.
The tenant does not dispute she has a dog. It remains at the property. The tenant says it is a well-trained dog that does not bark unless someone comes to the premises. She says her plan is to move out or she will have to stay and try and make an arrangement with the landlord to keep the dog. She also mentioned looking for a place for the dog to go. She says that she is actively looking for a place. She says that she did ask if she could keep the dog on 28 January 2025 but only recently (after 25 February 2025) feedback was given orally that the owner did not want a pet in the premises. The tenant says she did offer previously (in a different context) to put up a temporary fence. Analysis
The tenancy agreement sets out that the tenant is not permitted to keep a pet without the landlord’s agreement. I am satisfied that the tenant is keeping a pet dog at the premises. Despite a request the tenant has made to keep the dog the landlord has recently refused this.
A number of recent Tribunal decisions have considered if a ‘no pets’ clause is in fact enforceable. By way of a selection of decisions on this subject see: [2023] NZTT 4421925 and [2025] NZTT 4936033, 4937674 and [2023] NZTT 4639420, 4595629.
A “no pets” clause is not straightforward because the RTA presently makes no specific reference to pets. Changes to the law relating to pets are anticipated shortly in the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024, but these amendments are not presently in force.
Ultimately here I find that I do not have to determine whether this pet clause is enforceable. This is because, even if it was enforceable, I find it would not be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy at this stage.
This is because the 14-day notice given by the landlord expressly said that the tenant could seek written permission from the landlord to keep her pet. She did this immediately. She then did not hear from the landlord on this issue until after the second property inspection and after she sent a follow up email on 25 February. She then only heard orally sometime after that her requested permission had been refused, and the landlord’s response was simply that he wanted the pet off the property as soon as possible.
I consider that where a tenancy agreement provides that a tenant may make a request of a landlord to keep a pet (and/or has been formally invited to do so) such consent should not be unreasonably withheld and reasons for such a refusal should be given. I also consider that where a tenant has been invited to make a request to keep a pet, a timely response ought to be given so that the tenant can make subsequent arrangements based on that response. That was not given here. The dog is not presently causing damage (I am not satisfied that a generic statement that there was a dog smell amounts to damage) and complaints from neighbours are insufficiently proven.
Given the circumstances of this case I consider it equitable to afford the tenant a further opportunity to consider her position including locating alternative accommodation for herself and the dog, or rehoming the dog.
The application to terminate the tenancy is dismissed.
The landlord sought name suppression but this is not granted as the landlord has not been successful and I see no other reason to grant suppression in this application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5174491 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 2, 146 Halsey Drive, Lynfield, Auckland 1042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5174491 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 2, 146 Halsey Drive, Lynfield, Auckland 1042

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions