What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5498429?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal declares the tenant is currently in breach of their obligations under

How much money was awarded in case 5498429?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5498429?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5498429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13718987-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5498429?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal declares the tenant is currently in breach of their obligations under

How much money was awarded in case 5498429?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5498429?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5498429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13718987-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

25 Murdoch Street, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5498429 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Tribunal declares the tenant is currently in breach of their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 in the following ways: a. The premises are not being kept reasonably clean and tidy; and b. The tenant is keeping a dog at the premises which is not microchipped or registered.
Failure by the tenant to remedy these breaches is likely to result in the Tribunal ending the tenancy.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 9 June 2026. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord seeks a declaration from the Tribunal confirming that the tenant is currently in breach of their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) in the following ways: a. By not keeping the premises reasonably clean and tidy; and b. By keeping a dog at the premises that is not microchipped or registered.
At this stage, the landlord does not seek termination of the tenancy however, they advised that if the tenant does not remedy these breaches reasonably quickly, they are likely to file a new application seeking termination of the tenancy. Is the tenant in breach of their obligations by not keeping the premises reasonably clean and tidy? The law
Section 40(1)(c) of the RTA requires the tenant to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 1 It does not mean commercially clean, 2 spotless 3 or to a hotel or motel standard. 4 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 5 Analysis
The landlord submitted photographs of the premises taken on 29 May 2026, which prove the tenant is not keeping the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The outside of the premises has a lot of rubbish, personal belongings, furniture, appliances and other miscellaneous household items scattered throughout. The rubbish bins are full and there is at least one black rubbish bag beside the bins. The lawns are also overgrown.
The landlord has sent the tenant two 14-day notices on 27 May 2025 and 23 December 2025. Despite these notices, the tenant has not remedied the breach and returned the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
The tenant should beware that continued failure to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard is likely to result in termination of the tenancy. The tenant should clean the premises, dispose of all rubbish and excess personal belongings, and mow the lawns as a matter of urgency. 1 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 2 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 4 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. Is the tenant in breach of their obligations by keeping a dog at the premises which is not microchipped or registered? The law
Section 42C RTA states that a tenant may keep a pet on the premises in the following circumstances: a. If the tenancy agreement provides that the tenant may keep the pet, or the landlord gives written consent to the tenant keeping the pet; and b. In accordance with any reasonable conditions set out in the tenancy agreement or attached to the consent. Analysis
The tenant has a dog at the premises. They have made a written request to the landlord to keep the dog at the premises. The landlord has responded in writing to the tenant, advising that they are happy for the tenant to keep a dog at the premises, provided the dog is micro-chipped and registered. The tenant has not micro-chipped or registered the dog.
The tenant has not complied with the reasonable conditions attached to the landlord’s consent. This means that they are currently in breach of their obligations under section 42C(1)(b) RTA.
The landlord has sent the tenant a 14-day notice on 5 March 2026, requiring the tenant to microchip and register the dog. Despite this notice, the tenant has not microchipped and registered the dog.
The tenant should beware that failure to microchip and register the dog is likely to result in termination of the tenancy. The tenant should microchip and register the dog as a matter of urgency. Filing fee
The landlord did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee. Therefore, I do not order the tenant to pay this cost.

Order

The Tribunal declares the tenant is currently in breach of their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 in the following ways: a. The premises are not being kept reasonably clean and tidy; and b. The tenant is keeping a dog at the premises which is not microchipped or registered.
Failure by the tenant to remedy these breaches is likely to result in the Tribunal ending the tenancy.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 9 June 2026. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord seeks a declaration from the Tribunal confirming that the tenant is currently in breach of their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) in the following ways: a. By not keeping the premises reasonably clean and tidy; and b. By keeping a dog at the premises that is not microchipped or registered.
At this stage, the landlord does not seek termination of the tenancy however, they advised that if the tenant does not remedy these breaches reasonably quickly, they are likely to file a new application seeking termination of the tenancy. Is the tenant in breach of their obligations by not keeping the premises reasonably clean and tidy? The law
Section 40(1)(c) of the RTA requires the tenant to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 1 It does not mean commercially clean, 2 spotless 3 or to a hotel or motel standard. 4 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 5 Analysis
The landlord submitted photographs of the premises taken on 29 May 2026, which prove the tenant is not keeping the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The outside of the premises has a lot of rubbish, personal belongings, furniture, appliances and other miscellaneous household items scattered throughout. The rubbish bins are full and there is at least one black rubbish bag beside the bins. The lawns are also overgrown.
The landlord has sent the tenant two 14-day notices on 27 May 2025 and 23 December 2025. Despite these notices, the tenant has not remedied the breach and returned the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
The tenant should beware that continued failure to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard is likely to result in termination of the tenancy. The tenant should clean the premises, dispose of all rubbish and excess personal belongings, and mow the lawns as a matter of urgency. 1 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 2 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 4 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. Is the tenant in breach of their obligations by keeping a dog at the premises which is not microchipped or registered? The law
Section 42C RTA states that a tenant may keep a pet on the premises in the following circumstances: a. If the tenancy agreement provides that the tenant may keep the pet, or the landlord gives written consent to the tenant keeping the pet; and b. In accordance with any reasonable conditions set out in the tenancy agreement or attached to the consent. Analysis
The tenant has a dog at the premises. They have made a written request to the landlord to keep the dog at the premises. The landlord has responded in writing to the tenant, advising that they are happy for the tenant to keep a dog at the premises, provided the dog is micro-chipped and registered. The tenant has not micro-chipped or registered the dog.
The tenant has not complied with the reasonable conditions attached to the landlord’s consent. This means that they are currently in breach of their obligations under section 42C(1)(b) RTA.
The landlord has sent the tenant a 14-day notice on 5 March 2026, requiring the tenant to microchip and register the dog. Despite this notice, the tenant has not microchipped and registered the dog.
The tenant should beware that failure to microchip and register the dog is likely to result in termination of the tenancy. The tenant should microchip and register the dog as a matter of urgency. Filing fee
The landlord did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee. Therefore, I do not order the tenant to pay this cost.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5498429 — Tenancy dispute at 25 Murdoch Street, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5498429 — Tenancy dispute at 25 Murdoch Street, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions