What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5206871?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of TEREHINA ELIZABETH NATHAN at 1A Rosemary Lane,

How much money was awarded in case 5206871?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5206871?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5206871?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11694086-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5206871?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of TEREHINA ELIZABETH NATHAN at 1A Rosemary Lane,

How much money was awarded in case 5206871?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5206871?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5206871?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11694086-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1A Rosemary Lane, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5206871 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on grounds that the tenant had threatened to assault its staff and for breach of the tenant’s obligations in keeping dogs at the premises without the landlord’s permission.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal must terminate a tenancy where the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, the landlord or agent of the landlord. See section 55(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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.

The landlord is a social housing agency.

On 26 February 2025, the tenant threatened to assault the landlord’s Senior Housing Support Manager Maddie when she said: “Maddie, I am the type of person who will follow you home, burn you, your house and your kids down if you make me get rid of my dogs”.

The tenant acknowledges issuing those threats although she maintains that she never meant to follow through with those threats. The tenant was upset that the landlord took issue with her keeping dogs at the premises; the tenant was not prepared to part with her dogs.

Being satisfied that a threat to assault an agent and staff of the landlord had been made by the tenant, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. Section 55(1)(c) RTA places a threat of assault on the same level and degree of seriousness with actual assault. To that extent, threats cannot be disregarded despite the maker of the threats not intending to follow through with them in any manner whatsoever.

I am also satisfied that the tenancy should be terminated under section 56 RTA because the tenant is unwilling to remove dogs on the premises.

Kāinga Ora has previously applied to the Tribunal in November 2024 for Ms Nathan to remove her unconsented dogs from the property. The dogs have soiled and damaged the property.

In my order under application 5057588, Ms Nathan was directed to remove the dogs by 20 November 2024. The dogs had yet to be removed during the landlord’s visit on 26 February 2025.

In fact, there were more dogs at the property as one of the dogs had given birth.

During the visit, Ms Nathan informed Maddie that she was going to have the dogs registered soon. She also acknowledged the deteriorating condition of the property.

For the above reasons, under section 56 RTA, I consider that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy as sought by the landlord.

The tenancy is therefore terminated; I allow the tenant a week to leave the premises.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal must terminate a tenancy where the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, the landlord or agent of the landlord. See section 55(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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.

The landlord is a social housing agency.

I am also satisfied that the tenancy should be terminated under section 56 RTA because the tenant is unwilling to remove dogs on the premises.

Kāinga Ora has previously applied to the Tribunal in November 2024 for Ms Nathan to remove her unconsented dogs from the property. The dogs have soiled and damaged the property.

In my order under application 5057588, Ms Nathan was directed to remove the dogs by 20 November 2024. The dogs had yet to be removed during the landlord’s visit on 26 February 2025.

In fact, there were more dogs at the property as one of the dogs had given birth.

During the visit, Ms Nathan informed Maddie that she was going to have the dogs registered soon. She also acknowledged the deteriorating condition of the property.

For the above reasons, under section 56 RTA, I consider that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy as sought by the landlord.

The tenancy is therefore terminated; I allow the tenant a week to leave the premises.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5206871 — 14-day notice at 1A Rosemary Lane, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5206871 — 14-day notice at 1A Rosemary Lane, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions