Tenant Found in Breach for Dirty Premises and Unregistered Dog
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that a tenant was in breach of their obligations for failing to keep the rented premises reasonably clean and tidy and for not having their dog microchipped and registered. The landlord provided evidence of the dirty state of the premises and the unregistered dog.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy and ensure that any pets are microchipped and registered.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal declared the tenant in breach for failing to keep the premises clean and tidy and for not registering the dog.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal found that the tenant was in breach of their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 for failing to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy and for not having the dog microchipped and registered.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5498429 1
[2026] NZTT 5498429
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. 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.
2. Failure by the tenant to remedy these breaches is likely to result in the Tribunal ending the tenancy.
Reasons:
1. The landlord attended the hearing on 9 June 2026. The tenant did not attend.
2. 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.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5498429 2
3. 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
4. Section 40(1)(c) of the RTA requires the tenant to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
5. “Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable.1 It does not mean commercially clean,2 spotless3 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
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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].
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5498429 3
Is the tenant in breach of their obligations by keeping a dog at the premises which is not microchipped or registered?
The law
9. 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
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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
14. The landlord did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee. Therefore, I do not order the tenant to pay this cost.
L Ryken
09 June 2026
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5498429 4
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5498429 5
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order, or the failure to make an order, where the amount in dispute on appeal is
less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work, or the failure to make an order, where the value of the
work in dispute on appeal is less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5498429 6
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal declared that the tenant was in breach of their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 for failing to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy and for not having the dog microchipped and registered.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant had failed to maintain the rented premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and whether the tenant's dog was properly registered.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant was in breach because the premises were not kept reasonably clean and tidy and the dog was not microchipped or registered, as required by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40 and 42C were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most important argument was that the tenant had not maintained the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and had not registered the dog as required by the tenancy agreement.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the landlord, who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that their premises are kept reasonably clean and tidy and that any pets are properly registered according to the tenancy agreement.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs of the dirty premises and notices sent to the tenant regarding the cleanliness and pet registration were the key pieces of evidence.