Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5463030 — 14-day notice at 6 Ross Place, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410
Published 1 May 2026 · Application 5463030
Mixed / unclear
- 14-day notice
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Mixed / unclear
From published order
Location
Palmerston North
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
T Baker
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- YAVANNA GWEN MURPHY must remove any dog from the tenancy at 6 Ross Place, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410 by 7 May 2026.
- If YAVANNA GWEN MURPHY fails to comply with Order 1, the tenancy at 6 Ross Place, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410 will be terminated immediately and possession granted to Kainga Ora Homes and Communities.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the 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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- 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.
- The landlord says that the tenant has breached their obligations by having two dogs at the premises without obtaining consent. The dogs belong to a friend of the tenant who has been staying at the tenancy.
- On 9 December 2025, a neighbouring tenant reported that one of the dogs from Ms Murphy’s property bit their father-in-law as he attempted to enter their home. The victim required medical treatment for three puncture wounds to his right thigh.
- The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 15 December 2025 requiring the dogs to be removed. They say that the dogs remain.
- On 17 December the tenant met with Kainga Ora staff and said she was aware of the incident.
- On 22 December the landlord issued an anti-social behaviour notice about the incident on 9 December. It records that a large brown dog exited the front door of the premises and bit a member of the public on the thigh. It says that during the meeting held with the tenant, she would not provide the details of the owner, but did confirm that the dogs and the male had been been living with her to provide security. The notice records that the tenant said that she has asked this person to leave ad that the dogs are no longer living at the property.
- The landlord provided an email from Palmerston North City Council saying: Council has received two complaints regarding individuals being bitten by two dogs matching the descriptions of Xena and Big Red Dog, which have originated from or took place at the property at 6 Ross Place. Both incidents are currently under investigation and remain active cases. No dogs are registered to this address. ... There have been a total of five calls relating to dogs which match the description of Xena and Big Red Dog. In December 2025, two complaints reporting the two separate dog attacks as noted above; one roaming compliant for dogs matching the description of Xena and Big Red Dog in Ross Place; and a call providing information about the presence of dogs at 6 Ross Place. In January 2026, one complaint of roaming dogs matching the description of Xena and Big Red Dog in Ross Place. ...Council has attended 6 Ross Place five times in response to each complaint.
- The landlord said that Ms Murphy agreed to remove the dogs by 27 December 2025, but multiple neighbours confirmed the dogs remained at the property. Despite being required to remove the dogs by 31 December 2025, a Senior Housing Support Manager photographed one of the dogs on 30 January 2026.
- As noted above, the Council received a complaint in January of the two dogs in Ross Place.
- On 3 February there was a further meeting with the tenant who maintained that the dogs had been removed. The landlord then received an anonymous complaint that the dogs had recently attacked another neighbour’s dog.
- The landlord provided evidence of a complaint from a neighbour yesterday that two big dogs were seen on the property. A video was also provided from a neighbour of a dog there yesterday.
- At the hearing, the tenant said that the dogs are not living at her home, but belong to a friend of hers, who still visits. She was not aware of the dogs being there yesterday.
- I find that it is more likely than not that the dogs belong to the tenant’s friend who continues to stay there. This is not a case of a dog staying briefly overnight on one or two occasions. This has been an ongoing issue for four months now.
- It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the dogs are causing complaints from neighbours to the landlord and to the Council. The tenant has not applied for consent to have a pet and the landlord has not agreed to them being there.
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 landlord sought a conditional termination order. If the dogs are not removed by 7 May 2026, the tenancy will be terminated and possession granted to the landlord.
- 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.
- It is possible that the dogs will be removed and then return to the premises. The tenant may find that she faces a further application for eviction either for anti- social behaviour under section 55A or for breach of her obligations under section 40(2), which says that she must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
- Section 41 says that tenants are responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant.
- The presence of the dogs is a serious matter, as evidenced by the complaints made to the Council.
- That means that if the tenant continues to allow her friend to bring his dogs to her home, she may be found to have breached the reasonable peace and comfort of her neighbours, and she may find that her tenancy is terminated.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s40(2), s41, s55A, s56(1), s64(4)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: termination 14day
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5463030?
The tribunal order states: YAVANNA GWEN MURPHY must remove any dog from the tenancy at 6
How much money was awarded in case 5463030?
Verified claim lines are listed on this page.
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5463030?
The primary dispute was 14-day notice.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5463030?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13525142-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.