What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5252699?

The tribunal order states: The tenant must remove all but one dog from the premises, by no later than

How much money was awarded in case 5252699?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5252699?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5252699?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12020696-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5252699?

The tribunal order states: The tenant must remove all but one dog from the premises, by no later than

How much money was awarded in case 5252699?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5252699?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5252699?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12020696-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 14 Norman Street, Nawton, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5252699 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenant must remove all but one dog from the premises, by no later than 4pm on Wednesday 2 July 2025.
The tenant may only have one dog at the premises for a period of 150 days commencing on 2 July 2025.
If the tenant fails to comply with the orders above, the tenancy at Unit/Flat 2, 14 Norman Street, Nawton, Hamilton 3200 will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order is enforceable for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Reasons

The landlord attended this remote hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. The calls were not responded to. The landlord confirmed that the number provided to the Tribunal was the most recent telephone number held for the tenant. The landlord confirmed that the tenant had been visited most recently on 19 June 2025 and had confirmed the telephone number as being correct.
The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given to the tenant.
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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable of remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
The tenant has breached his obligations under the tenancy agreement by failing to obtain prior approval from the landlord to have more than one dog living at the premises.
This matter has had a lengthy history before the Tribunal.
The tenant resides in a small unit. Under the terms of his tenancy agreement, the tenant is entitled to have one dog living at the premises.
The tenant applied to the landlord to have more than one dog living at the premises. That request was declined by the landlord on 19 April 2024
The landlord sought termination of the tenancy as a result of the tenant having three dogs at the premises. By order dated 25 November 2024, the Tribunal ordered the tenant to remove all excess dogs from the property within 10 days of the order. The tenant did not comply with the order.
The landlord made a further application for a conditional termination of the tenancy. By order dated 10 April 2025 the Tribunal ordered the tenant to remove all but one dog by 27 April 2025. The tenant did not comply with that order.
The landlord’s evidence, which I accept, is that three dogs remain living at the premises with the tenant. The dog “Simba” has been with the tenant for a lengthy period and is the dog that the tenant is entitled to keep at the premises under the terms of his tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s evidence which includes photos, is that a dog named “Summer” and an unnamed puppy are also at the premises. I accept this evidence. No approval for either of the excess dogs to be at the premises has been given by the landlord.
The breach is not capable of remedy as the application is based on the tenant’s failure to seek approval to keep the excess dogs. Is the breach of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy? Section 56(1)(c) RTA
This part of section 56 RTA requires the Tribunal to decide whether the evidence shows that the breach is of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable not to terminate the tenancy. Section 56(1)(c) RTA does not give any other guidance. However, the District Court has given some direction to the Tribunal. In Terangi v Housing New Zealand Corporation DC Porirua CIV- 2010-091-110, 28 June 2010, the court held that what is required is a balancing exercise, and: “While the focus is mainly on the nature of the breach, the circumstances of the tenant or the consequences to the tenant of termination are relevant factors.”
The District Court in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management 2020] NZDC 19229 referred to the Terangi case, and other cases, and compiled a list of some of the relevant factors.
Both Terangi and Vincent Dean Huff have been applied and referred to in other Tenancy Tribunal cases.
The factors to be considered are:- a. The circumstances that gave rise to the breach (including the history of the tenancy and whether the breach was deliberate); b. The circumstances and conduct of the landlord; c. The gravity of the breach including whether the breach has caused (or will cause) damage; d. The circumstances of the tenant; e. The consequences on the tenant of termination or conditional termination; f. The consequences on the landlord and affected third parties of not making a termination or conditional termination order.
As noted previously, this matter has an extensive history. The breaches of both the tenancy agreement and the Tribunal’s orders by the tenant have been deliberate. Most recently, the tenant told the landlord that if an order were made by the Tribunal requiring the dogs to be removed, he would simply remove them on the day when the landlord checked to see if they were present and then arrange for them to be returned.
The breach has resulted in damage to the interior of the property including odour from the dogs urine and faeces. The premises are small and at least two of the dogs are large.
The landlord has throughout this ongoing matter attempted to assist the tenant to rehome the dogs.
If the tenancy were not terminated, there would be the potential for ongoing damage to the premises as well as further nuisance to the neighbouring properties.
I have reviewed the evidence in this matter and I consider that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
Despite my finding that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, having considered the evidence, I am prepared to give the tenant one final chance. Whether the tenant takes that opportunity or not, is a matter for the tenant. I have granted a conditional termination. See section 78(3) RTA.
The conditional order is as follows; (a) This order will take effect from 4 pm on Wednesday 2 July 2025 (b) The tenant must remove the excess dogs from the premises by no later than 4pm on Wednesday 2 July 2025. (c) If at any time within 150 days from the date that the order takes effect, the landlord has evidence to confirm that more than one dog is on the premises, the tenancy will be terminated. (d) The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order is enforceable for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Order

The tenant must remove all but one dog from the premises, by no later than 4pm on Wednesday 2 July 2025.
The tenant may only have one dog at the premises for a period of 150 days commencing on 2 July 2025.
If the tenant fails to comply with the orders above, the tenancy at Unit/Flat 2, 14 Norman Street, Nawton, Hamilton 3200 will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order is enforceable for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Reasons

The landlord attended this remote hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. The calls were not responded to. The landlord confirmed that the number provided to the Tribunal was the most recent telephone number held for the tenant. The landlord confirmed that the tenant had been visited most recently on 19 June 2025 and had confirmed the telephone number as being correct.
The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given to the tenant.
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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable of remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
The tenant has breached his obligations under the tenancy agreement by failing to obtain prior approval from the landlord to have more than one dog living at the premises.
This matter has had a lengthy history before the Tribunal.
The tenant resides in a small unit. Under the terms of his tenancy agreement, the tenant is entitled to have one dog living at the premises.
The tenant applied to the landlord to have more than one dog living at the premises. That request was declined by the landlord on 19 April 2024
The landlord sought termination of the tenancy as a result of the tenant having three dogs at the premises. By order dated 25 November 2024, the Tribunal ordered the tenant to remove all excess dogs from the property within 10 days of the order. The tenant did not comply with the order.
The landlord made a further application for a conditional termination of the tenancy. By order dated 10 April 2025 the Tribunal ordered the tenant to remove all but one dog by 27 April 2025. The tenant did not comply with that order.
The landlord’s evidence, which I accept, is that three dogs remain living at the premises with the tenant. The dog “Simba” has been with the tenant for a lengthy period and is the dog that the tenant is entitled to keep at the premises under the terms of his tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s evidence which includes photos, is that a dog named “Summer” and an unnamed puppy are also at the premises. I accept this evidence. No approval for either of the excess dogs to be at the premises has been given by the landlord.
The breach is not capable of remedy as the application is based on the tenant’s failure to seek approval to keep the excess dogs. Is the breach of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy? Section 56(1)(c) RTA
This part of section 56 RTA requires the Tribunal to decide whether the evidence shows that the breach is of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable not to terminate the tenancy. Section 56(1)(c) RTA does not give any other guidance. However, the District Court has given some direction to the Tribunal. In Terangi v Housing New Zealand Corporation DC Porirua CIV- 2010-091-110, 28 June 2010, the court held that what is required is a balancing exercise, and: “While the focus is mainly on the nature of the breach, the circumstances of the tenant or the consequences to the tenant of termination are relevant factors.”
The District Court in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management 2020] NZDC 19229 referred to the Terangi case, and other cases, and compiled a list of some of the relevant factors.
Both Terangi and Vincent Dean Huff have been applied and referred to in other Tenancy Tribunal cases.
The factors to be considered are:- a. The circumstances that gave rise to the breach (including the history of the tenancy and whether the breach was deliberate); b. The circumstances and conduct of the landlord; c. The gravity of the breach including whether the breach has caused (or will cause) damage; d. The circumstances of the tenant; e. The consequences on the tenant of termination or conditional termination; f. The consequences on the landlord and affected third parties of not making a termination or conditional termination order.
As noted previously, this matter has an extensive history. The breaches of both the tenancy agreement and the Tribunal’s orders by the tenant have been deliberate. Most recently, the tenant told the landlord that if an order were made by the Tribunal requiring the dogs to be removed, he would simply remove them on the day when the landlord checked to see if they were present and then arrange for them to be returned.
The breach has resulted in damage to the interior of the property including odour from the dogs urine and faeces. The premises are small and at least two of the dogs are large.
The landlord has throughout this ongoing matter attempted to assist the tenant to rehome the dogs.
If the tenancy were not terminated, there would be the potential for ongoing damage to the premises as well as further nuisance to the neighbouring properties.
I have reviewed the evidence in this matter and I consider that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
Despite my finding that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, having considered the evidence, I am prepared to give the tenant one final chance. Whether the tenant takes that opportunity or not, is a matter for the tenant. I have granted a conditional termination. See section 78(3) RTA.
The conditional order is as follows; (a) This order will take effect from 4 pm on Wednesday 2 July 2025 (b) The tenant must remove the excess dogs from the premises by no later than 4pm on Wednesday 2 July 2025. (c) If at any time within 150 days from the date that the order takes effect, the landlord has evidence to confirm that more than one dog is on the premises, the tenancy will be terminated. (d) The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order is enforceable for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5252699 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 14 Norman Street, Nawton, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5252699 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 14 Norman Street, Nawton, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions