What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5302700?

The tribunal order states: By 10 am Friday 29 August 2025 the tenant must have:

How much money was awarded in case 5302700?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5302700?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5302700?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12302807-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5302700?

The tribunal order states: By 10 am Friday 29 August 2025 the tenant must have:

How much money was awarded in case 5302700?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5302700?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5302700?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12302807-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 132 Mangere Road, Otahuhu, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5302700 — 14-day notice

Order

By 10 am Friday 29 August 2025 the tenant must have: a. Removed the unauthorised structure and all materials from the premises. b. Permanently removed all dogs from the premises.
The parties shall meet at the premises at 10 am Friday 29 August 2025 so that the landlord can be satisfied that the tenant has complied with Order 1.
If the tenant has not complied with Order 1 by that date and time, or the dog returns to the premises without the landlord’s written consent, the tenancy at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 132 Mangere Road, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062 will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied for a conditional termination of the tenancy because of repeated and continuing breaches by the tenant of the tenancy agreement and the tenant’s obligations under the residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord gave evidence as follows: a. The landlord became aware that the tenant had two dogs on the property in breach of Clause 10 of the tenancy agreement which provided that: “The tenant shall not keep a dog within the premises unless the landlord agrees in writing beforehand.” b. The landlord declined the tenant’s request to keep a dog by letter on 30 January 2025 and requiring the dog to be removed by 18 April 2025. The letter noted that keeping the dog was a breach of the tenancy agreement. c. On 2 April 2025 the landlord gave written notice to the tenant that they were breaching the tenancy agreement and the RTA by keeping two unapproved dogs at the property and erecting a structure without the landlord’s consent. The tenant was given until 18 April 2025 to remove the structure and is material components and to remove the two dogs. d. The structure is close to the dwelling and to the air-conditioning condenser unit which may adversely affect its operation. The dog has dug holes in the lawn which require repair. e. The tenant did not comply with the landlord’s request and so a further letter was sent on 15 May 2025 noting the continuing breaches and arranging a meeting to discuss the matter further. The tenant did not attend this meeting and the tenant was telephoned on 21 May 2025 and advised that an application to the Tribunal would be made. f. The Tribunal made an order 5086752 on 13 January 2025 requiring the tenant to remove another unauthorised structure so that the tenant is well aware of their obligations regarding building structures at the premises. g. One of the dogs appears to have been removed from the property but a black dog remains.
The tenant gave evidence as follows: a. One of the dogs has been removed from the premises. b. They wish to keep the black dog as a support dog for their sons and they will apply to the landlord for permission. c. The structure is small and needed to protect their barbecue and other items for which there is no room in the garage.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

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. 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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant has breached their obligations by building the structure without the landlord’s consent (see section 42(1) RTA) and keeping dogs at the premises in breach of the tenancy agreement. On 2 April 2025 the landlord served a 14- day notice on the tenant, but the breach was not remedied within the required period. It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy for the following reasons: a. The breaches have been deliberate and continuing for six months. b. The tenant has been made aware by the previous Tribunal order that they cannot construct structures without the prior written approval of the landlord. c. The landlord has tried to engage with the tenant in having the structure and the dog removed but the tenant has not co-operated. d. The tenant made it clear at the hearing that they would not remove the dog or the structure, despite the landlord’s notice and subsequent warning and the prior Tribunal order. e. Termination for such repeated and continuing breaches is a proportionate response.
Despite my finding that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, this is a tenancy of nearly 25 years and the landlord wishes to sustain it. It is prepared to give the tenant a final opportunity to comply with their obligations under the tenancy agreement and the RTA before enforcing termination. It is therefore appropriate to make a conditional termination order. See section 78(3) RTA.
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

By 10 am Friday 29 August 2025 the tenant must have: a. Removed the unauthorised structure and all materials from the premises. b. Permanently removed all dogs from the premises.

The parties shall meet at the premises at 10 am Friday 29 August 2025 so that the landlord can be satisfied that the tenant has complied with Order 1.

If the tenant has not complied with Order 1 by that date and time, or the dog returns to the premises without the landlord’s written consent, the tenancy at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 132 Mangere Road, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062 will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.

The landlord has applied for a conditional termination of the tenancy because of repeated and continuing breaches by the tenant of the tenancy agreement and the tenant’s obligations under the residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

The landlord gave evidence as follows: a. The landlord became aware that the tenant had two dogs on the property in breach of Clause 10 of the tenancy agreement which provided that: “The tenant shall not keep a dog within the premises unless the landlord agrees in writing beforehand.” b. The landlord declined the tenant’s request to keep a dog by letter on 30 January 2025 and requiring the dog to be removed by 18 April 2025. The letter noted that keeping the dog was a breach of the tenancy agreement. c. On 2 April 2025 the landlord gave written notice to the tenant that they were breaching the tenancy agreement and the RTA by keeping two unapproved dogs at the property and erecting a structure without the landlord’s consent. The tenant was given until 18 April 2025 to remove the structure and is material components and to remove the two dogs. d. The structure is close to the dwelling and to the air-conditioning condenser unit which may adversely affect its operation. The dog has dug holes in the lawn which require repair. e. The tenant did not comply with the landlord’s request and so a further letter was sent on 15 May 2025 noting the continuing breaches and arranging a meeting to discuss the matter further. The tenant did not attend this meeting and the tenant was telephoned on 21 May 2025 and advised that an application to the Tribunal would be made. f. The Tribunal made an order 5086752 on 13 January 2025 requiring the tenant to remove another unauthorised structure so that the tenant is well aware of their obligations regarding building structures at the premises. g. One of the dogs appears to have been removed from the property but a black dog remains.

The tenant gave evidence as follows: a. One of the dogs has been removed from the premises. b. They wish to keep the black dog as a support dog for their sons and they will apply to the landlord for permission. c. The structure is small and needed to protect their barbecue and other items for which there is no room in the garage.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

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. 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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant has breached their obligations by building the structure without the landlord’s consent (see section 42(1) RTA) and keeping dogs at the premises in breach of the tenancy agreement. On 2 April 2025 the landlord served a 14- day notice on the tenant, but the breach was not remedied within the required period. It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy for the following reasons: a. The breaches have been deliberate and continuing for six months. b. The tenant has been made aware by the previous Tribunal order that they cannot construct structures without the prior written approval of the landlord. c. The landlord has tried to engage with the tenant in having the structure and the dog removed but the tenant has not co-operated. d. The tenant made it clear at the hearing that they would not remove the dog or the structure, despite the landlord’s notice and subsequent warning and the prior Tribunal order. e. Termination for such repeated and continuing breaches is a proportionate response.

Despite my finding that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, this is a tenancy of nearly 25 years and the landlord wishes to sustain it. It is prepared to give the tenant a final opportunity to comply with their obligations under the tenancy agreement and the RTA before enforcing termination. It is therefore appropriate to make a conditional termination order. See section 78(3) RTA.

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 5302700 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 132 Mangere Road, Otahuhu, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5302700 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 132 Mangere Road, Otahuhu, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions