What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5223971?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Wendy Maree Egen at 87B John Davis Road, Mount Roskill,

How much money was awarded in case 5223971?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5223971?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5223971?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13031762-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5223971?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Wendy Maree Egen at 87B John Davis Road, Mount Roskill,

How much money was awarded in case 5223971?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5223971?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5223971?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13031762-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

87B John Davis Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5223971 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Wendy Maree Egen at 87B John Davis Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities, at midnight on 26 February 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was heard remotely.
The landlord is seeking an order for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant has not complied with a 14 day notice to remove dogs from her premises. 1 This order was recalled and reissued due to a typographical error in the date, being wrongly referred to in paragraphs 1 and 22 as 2025, not 2026.
The landlord was initially seeking an order for a conditional termination. There was a hearing on 16 September 2025 and, while I did not make orders for a conditional termination, I made orders (my prior order) that: a. Wendy Maree Egen is in breach of the tenancy agreement with Kāinga Ora– Homes and Communities at 87B John Davis Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland by having more than one dog at the premises. b. Wendy Maree Egen must remove three of the four dogs she keeps at her premises permanently by 16 October 2025. c. This matter is adjourned until after 16 October 2025. If the three dogs have not been removed from the premises, the Tribunal will likely then terminate the tenancy.
In the meantime, the tenant made her own application against the landlord for compensation regarding alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). That application was heard by another adjudicator and the parties are still awaiting a decision. I mention this for completion purposes only.
I note that my prior order was not appealed, however, I was informed today that the tenant applied unsuccessfully to the High Court for an injunction to restrain any termination. Background
I found in my prior order that the tenant had been given permission to keep one dog at the outset of the tenancy. I found that there were in fact 4 dogs at the property, so the tenant was in breach of the agreement.
As was recorded in my prior decision, s 56 notices were delivered to the tenant about removing the dogs in 2024 and then again in 2025.
I adjourned the matter after issuing my prior order to essentially give the tenant time to remove the additional dogs.
At the hearing today, a video was produced showing three dogs at the property. They are all on the balcony. One can be seen barking at someone or something out on the street. The balcony itself is very small.
According to the landlord, the barking is causing a nuisance to the neighbours.
The tenant does not deny that she has more than one dog at the property, although she suggested that the smaller of the three dogs seen in the video was likely the cat.
A central plank of her response is that the landlord is bullying her and weaponizing against her. She claims an employee of the landlord’s is behind the complaints.
There was no evidence offered corroborating these allegations. The landlord says it has worked with the tenant over a long period of time to deal with the dogs.
There was discussion at the hearing about whether a fly screen could perhaps be installed to prevent the dogs running out on to the balcony and barking, and also discussions about what length of time would be reasonable for any termination order to take effect, if I agreed with the landlord that termination was appropriate.
The tenant and the landlord are free to explore the option of installing a flyscreen or barrier to stop the dogs (s) running out on to the balcony.
The landlord has asked for the termination order to take effect on 26 January; the tenant says this is not enough time.
The landlord acknowledges that in the event the tenant is able to remove the dogs between now and any effective possession date, it will review termination of the tenancy with a view to re-instating it.

Should a conditional termination be granted?

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) 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.
A 14 day notice was issued and then further time and notice was given by way of my prior order.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant has now had plenty of time to remove the additional dogs. She has breached her obligations by refusing to comply with the notice.
In recognition that this is a 20 year tenancy I find the possession date should be 26 February 2026. This therefore gives the tenant plenty of time to reduce the dog numbers and seek to reinstate the tenancy with the landlord.

Order

The tenancy of Wendy Maree Egen at 87B John Davis Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities, at midnight on 26 February 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was heard remotely.
The landlord is seeking an order for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant has not complied with a 14 day notice to remove dogs from her premises. 1 This order was recalled and reissued due to a typographical error in the date, being wrongly referred to in paragraphs 1 and 22 as 2025, not 2026.
The landlord was initially seeking an order for a conditional termination. There was a hearing on 16 September 2025 and, while I did not make orders for a conditional termination, I made orders (my prior order) that: a. Wendy Maree Egen is in breach of the tenancy agreement with Kāinga Ora– Homes and Communities at 87B John Davis Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland by having more than one dog at the premises. b. Wendy Maree Egen must remove three of the four dogs she keeps at her premises permanently by 16 October 2025. c. This matter is adjourned until after 16 October 2025. If the three dogs have not been removed from the premises, the Tribunal will likely then terminate the tenancy.
In the meantime, the tenant made her own application against the landlord for compensation regarding alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). That application was heard by another adjudicator and the parties are still awaiting a decision. I mention this for completion purposes only.
I note that my prior order was not appealed, however, I was informed today that the tenant applied unsuccessfully to the High Court for an injunction to restrain any termination. Background
I found in my prior order that the tenant had been given permission to keep one dog at the outset of the tenancy. I found that there were in fact 4 dogs at the property, so the tenant was in breach of the agreement.
As was recorded in my prior decision, s 56 notices were delivered to the tenant about removing the dogs in 2024 and then again in 2025.
I adjourned the matter after issuing my prior order to essentially give the tenant time to remove the additional dogs.
At the hearing today, a video was produced showing three dogs at the property. They are all on the balcony. One can be seen barking at someone or something out on the street. The balcony itself is very small.
According to the landlord, the barking is causing a nuisance to the neighbours.
The tenant does not deny that she has more than one dog at the property, although she suggested that the smaller of the three dogs seen in the video was likely the cat.
A central plank of her response is that the landlord is bullying her and weaponizing against her. She claims an employee of the landlord’s is behind the complaints.
There was no evidence offered corroborating these allegations. The landlord says it has worked with the tenant over a long period of time to deal with the dogs.
There was discussion at the hearing about whether a fly screen could perhaps be installed to prevent the dogs running out on to the balcony and barking, and also discussions about what length of time would be reasonable for any termination order to take effect, if I agreed with the landlord that termination was appropriate.
The tenant and the landlord are free to explore the option of installing a flyscreen or barrier to stop the dogs (s) running out on to the balcony.
The landlord has asked for the termination order to take effect on 26 January; the tenant says this is not enough time.
The landlord acknowledges that in the event the tenant is able to remove the dogs between now and any effective possession date, it will review termination of the tenancy with a view to re-instating it.

Should a conditional termination be granted?

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) 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.
A 14 day notice was issued and then further time and notice was given by way of my prior order.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant has now had plenty of time to remove the additional dogs. She has breached her obligations by refusing to comply with the notice.
In recognition that this is a 20 year tenancy I find the possession date should be 26 February 2026. This therefore gives the tenant plenty of time to reduce the dog numbers and seek to reinstate the tenancy with the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5223971 — 14-day notice at 87B John Davis Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5223971 — 14-day notice at 87B John Davis Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination be granted?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination be granted?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions