What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5241213?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of CARL l NEWBURY at 11B Charwell Place, Highbury,

How much money was awarded in case 5241213?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5241213?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5241213?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11988453-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5241213?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of CARL l NEWBURY at 11B Charwell Place, Highbury,

How much money was awarded in case 5241213?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5241213?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5241213?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11988453-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11B Charwell Place, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5241213 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of CARL l NEWBURY at 11B Charwell Place, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 6.00pm on Monday 30 June 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the phone hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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. 1
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 1 See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
I note that this matter has previously been before the Tribunal and the previous Tribunal order dated 23 January 2025 records: a. The landlord requested the tenant on 26 February 2024 to rehome the puppies the tenant had at the premises and remove the caravan he had parked on communal land at the front of the premises. b. The landlord gave the tenant a 14-day breach letter on 26 July 2024 requiring the tenant to remove all dogs but two from the premises and remove the caravan by 15 August 2024. c. The tenant was in breach of clause 32 of the tenancy agreement which provides: “You are not allowed to keep dogs or other animals at the premises.” d. The tenant has not entered into a dog contract with the landlord which would record the terms on which the landlord agreed to the tenant retaining two dogs at the property. e. The local council requires a dog owner to have a permit to keep three or more dogs on a property. By having six dogs on the premises for the last year, the tenant was in breach of clause 36 of the tenancy agreement which provides: “You must comply with any local council by-laws...” f. The tenant has placed a “caravan wreck” on communal land in front of the premises which is damaging the lawn and is attracting complaints from neighbours. The landlord claimed that this was in breach of clause 16 of the tenancy agreement which requires the tenant to keep the grounds tidy and not damage the premises. g. The landlord agrees to the caravan being relocated to the rear of the premises to land for the tenant’s exclusive use.
On the 23 January 2025 The Adjudicator made the following orders: “1. The tenant shall: a. Remove dogs from the property so that no more than two remain by 7 February 2025. b. Enter into a dog contract for the two remaining dogs with the landlord by 7 February 2025. c. Remove the caravan from the premises or move it to the rear of the premises on land for the tenant’s exclusive use by 14 February 2025.”
The Adjudicator further noted that: The landlord has filed its application and sought an order from the Tribunal to bring home to the tenant the necessity of complying with the terms of his tenancy agreement. As explained to the tenant at the hearing, if he does not comply with the Tribunal’s order, the landlord will apply for an order terminating his tenancy because of his continued breaches.... The tenant needs to understand that if he does not comply with this order and continues to breach his tenancy agreement, the landlord’s application for termination is likely to be successful.
For the sake of completeness, I record that Tribunal orders have confirmed that pet clauses are enforceable. 2
The landlord’s evidence today is: a. Since the order was made the tenant has had unauthorised dogs that are disturbing the peace of neighbours by barking constantly and escaping the property. b. The landlord has received complaints that the community feels unsafe due to the dogs being off the lead in communal areas. c. There is outstanding drainage work that cannot be carried out at the property due to the dog’s presence. d. On 25 February 2025, contractors reported there were three or four dogs on site and one dog had been mauled by the other dogs. e. The SPCA have confirmed that in February 2025 there were four desexed female and one entire male dog at the property. The SPCA have offered support to the tenant by allowing him to surrender his dogs to their care. The tenant declined this offer although did surrender one dog who had been mauled. f. On 3 March 2025, the landlord phoned the tenant to advise that by not adhering to the Tribunal order his tenancy was now at risk and explained of the landlord’s intention to apply to the Tribunal to end his tenancy. The tenant is refusing to engage with the landlord. g. The landlord is concerned for the safety of the community and staff because there is a risk of injury from the dogs. h. The caravan remains on the communal land at the front of the premises. i. On 17 February 2025 and 16 June 2026, the tenancy manager visited 2 See Collins v Martin-Kemp [2023] NZTT 4711230 and Kristen Gaunt v Ngati Kahungunu Ki Poneke Community Services [2023] NZTT 4477761. the property and confirmed the caravan had not been moved. j. A neighbour has recently confirmed to the landlord that there are 4 dogs at the premises.
The tenant says there are only two dogs at the premises.
The tenant accepts the caravan is still at the premises, but says the landlord told him there was no point moving the caravan as they are seeking termination of the tenancy.
I consider it more likely than not that there are more than two dogs at the premises given the information received by the landlord from a number of sources. I consider the tenant continues to be in breach of the 14-day notice issued on 26 July 2024.
Having found that the tenant has not complied with the 14-day notice, I must consider if it would be inequitable not to terminate the tenancy.
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: (a)The history of the tenancy. (b)Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. (c)Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. (d)Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. (e)The conduct of the landlord. (f)The gravity of the breach. (g)Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The tenant has breached his obligations by keeping the dogs at the premises and the caravan on the communal land.
The tenancy history shows that the breach has been ongoing since early 2024.
The breaches are persistent, despite the Tribunal order requiring that all but two of the dogs would be removed, a pet agreement signed and the caravan would be moved. That history of breaches is such that in the Tribunal’s view it is unlikely that the tenant will comply with his obligations in the future.
The tenant has been made aware of his breaches. The breach has been a deliberate act by the tenant.
The breach is serious. The landlord has received numerous complaints and the SPCA has been involved.
The landlord is a social housing provider, and the premises is required for others in need.
Termination of the tenancy is not a disproportionate response to the ongoing breach.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy for the reasons set out above. The tenancy is terminated.
Neither party sought name suppression

Order

The tenancy of CARL l NEWBURY at 11B Charwell Place, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 6.00pm on Monday 30 June 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the phone hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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. 1
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 1 See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
I note that this matter has previously been before the Tribunal and the previous Tribunal order dated 23 January 2025 records: a. The landlord requested the tenant on 26 February 2024 to rehome the puppies the tenant had at the premises and remove the caravan he had parked on communal land at the front of the premises. b. The landlord gave the tenant a 14-day breach letter on 26 July 2024 requiring the tenant to remove all dogs but two from the premises and remove the caravan by 15 August 2024. c. The tenant was in breach of clause 32 of the tenancy agreement which provides: “You are not allowed to keep dogs or other animals at the premises.” d. The tenant has not entered into a dog contract with the landlord which would record the terms on which the landlord agreed to the tenant retaining two dogs at the property. e. The local council requires a dog owner to have a permit to keep three or more dogs on a property. By having six dogs on the premises for the last year, the tenant was in breach of clause 36 of the tenancy agreement which provides: “You must comply with any local council by-laws...” f. The tenant has placed a “caravan wreck” on communal land in front of the premises which is damaging the lawn and is attracting complaints from neighbours. The landlord claimed that this was in breach of clause 16 of the tenancy agreement which requires the tenant to keep the grounds tidy and not damage the premises. g. The landlord agrees to the caravan being relocated to the rear of the premises to land for the tenant’s exclusive use.
On the 23 January 2025 The Adjudicator made the following orders: “1. The tenant shall: a. Remove dogs from the property so that no more than two remain by 7 February 2025. b. Enter into a dog contract for the two remaining dogs with the landlord by 7 February 2025. c. Remove the caravan from the premises or move it to the rear of the premises on land for the tenant’s exclusive use by 14 February 2025.”
The Adjudicator further noted that: The landlord has filed its application and sought an order from the Tribunal to bring home to the tenant the necessity of complying with the terms of his tenancy agreement. As explained to the tenant at the hearing, if he does not comply with the Tribunal’s order, the landlord will apply for an order terminating his tenancy because of his continued breaches.... The tenant needs to understand that if he does not comply with this order and continues to breach his tenancy agreement, the landlord’s application for termination is likely to be successful.
For the sake of completeness, I record that Tribunal orders have confirmed that pet clauses are enforceable. 2
The landlord’s evidence today is: a. Since the order was made the tenant has had unauthorised dogs that are disturbing the peace of neighbours by barking constantly and escaping the property. b. The landlord has received complaints that the community feels unsafe due to the dogs being off the lead in communal areas. c. There is outstanding drainage work that cannot be carried out at the property due to the dog’s presence. d. On 25 February 2025, contractors reported there were three or four dogs on site and one dog had been mauled by the other dogs. e. The SPCA have confirmed that in February 2025 there were four desexed female and one entire male dog at the property. The SPCA have offered support to the tenant by allowing him to surrender his dogs to their care. The tenant declined this offer although did surrender one dog who had been mauled. f. On 3 March 2025, the landlord phoned the tenant to advise that by not adhering to the Tribunal order his tenancy was now at risk and explained of the landlord’s intention to apply to the Tribunal to end his tenancy. The tenant is refusing to engage with the landlord. g. The landlord is concerned for the safety of the community and staff because there is a risk of injury from the dogs. h. The caravan remains on the communal land at the front of the premises. i. On 17 February 2025 and 16 June 2026, the tenancy manager visited 2 See Collins v Martin-Kemp [2023] NZTT 4711230 and Kristen Gaunt v Ngati Kahungunu Ki Poneke Community Services [2023] NZTT 4477761. the property and confirmed the caravan had not been moved. j. A neighbour has recently confirmed to the landlord that there are 4 dogs at the premises.
The tenant says there are only two dogs at the premises.
The tenant accepts the caravan is still at the premises, but says the landlord told him there was no point moving the caravan as they are seeking termination of the tenancy.
I consider it more likely than not that there are more than two dogs at the premises given the information received by the landlord from a number of sources. I consider the tenant continues to be in breach of the 14-day notice issued on 26 July 2024.
Having found that the tenant has not complied with the 14-day notice, I must consider if it would be inequitable not to terminate the tenancy.
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: (a)The history of the tenancy. (b)Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. (c)Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. (d)Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. (e)The conduct of the landlord. (f)The gravity of the breach. (g)Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The tenant has breached his obligations by keeping the dogs at the premises and the caravan on the communal land.
The tenancy history shows that the breach has been ongoing since early 2024.
The breaches are persistent, despite the Tribunal order requiring that all but two of the dogs would be removed, a pet agreement signed and the caravan would be moved. That history of breaches is such that in the Tribunal’s view it is unlikely that the tenant will comply with his obligations in the future.
The tenant has been made aware of his breaches. The breach has been a deliberate act by the tenant.
The breach is serious. The landlord has received numerous complaints and the SPCA has been involved.
The landlord is a social housing provider, and the premises is required for others in need.
Termination of the tenancy is not a disproportionate response to the ongoing breach.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy for the reasons set out above. The tenancy is terminated.
Neither party sought name suppression

Tenancy Tribunal case 5241213 — 14-day notice at 11B Charwell Place, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5241213 — 14-day notice at 11B Charwell Place, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412

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