Tenant Loses Tenancy Over Repeated Non-Compliance With Dog Ban Order
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ended a tenant's lease because they kept bringing a dog back to their home despite being ordered not to. The Tribunal decided it wasn't fair to let the tenant continue renting when they ignored the rules multiple times.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant must comply with a Tribunal's order prohibiting a dog at the premises, failure to do so can lead to termination of the tenancy.
📖 What the law says
This rule allows the Tenancy Tribunal to end a tenancy if one party breaks the tenancy agreement or the Act. If the problem can be fixed, the party who complained must have given the other party a notice asking them to fix it within at least 10 working days, and they failed to do so.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The tenancy was terminated due to repeated breaches of the Tribunal's order prohibiting a dog at the premises.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal terminated the tenancy of a tenant at a specific address after the tenant repeatedly failed to comply with an earlier order prohibiting a dog at the premises. The Tribunal found it inequitable to refuse termination due to the nature and extent of the breaches.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5171521 1
[2025] NZTT 5171521
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The tenancy of [NAME] at [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities, at 11:59pm on Tuesday 22 April 2025.
Reasons:
1. The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant was unable to be contacted on the number specified in the Notice of Hearing or a number more recently provided to the landlord.
2. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
Should the tenancy be terminated?
3. On 9 September 2024 the Tribunal made an Order in application 4964031 that:
“1. The tenant is not permitted to keep a dog at the premises.
2. The tenant must permanently remove all dogs from the premises at [ADDRESS] and must ensure that any dog in his care is removed
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5171521 2
from shared areas at the housing complex located at 3-[ADDRESS], Otangerei by 10:00am On Monday 16 September 2024, and must not allow any dog to return at any date in the future”
4. The landlord’s evidence is that on 1 January 2025 the housing manager found the dog that had been the reason for the previous application, at the premises. A s.56 breach notice was issued requiring that the dog be removed as required by the Tribunal’s Order.
5. On 12 February 2025 the dog was again seen at the premises and the tenant was told that this application would be brought to end the tenancy. The landlord has provided a photograph of the dog seen at the premises on that date.
6. 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.
4. The evidence presented satisfies me that the tenant has chosen not to comply with multiple notices given to him under s.56 RTA requiring that he not have a dog at the premises. He has chosen not to comply with the Tribunal’s Order and has not complied with a s.56 notice issued since the Order was issued.
5. In those circumstances, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
[NAME]
08 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5171521 3
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 for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5171521 4
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:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The landlord proved the tenant failed to comply with a previous Tribunal order to remove a dog from the property.
- The tenant did not comply with multiple notices from the landlord requiring the removal of the dog.
- The Tribunal found it would be unfair to refuse to end the tenancy given the tenant's continued non-compliance.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal decided to terminate the tenant's tenancy because they repeatedly failed to comply with an order prohibiting a dog at the premises.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant should be allowed to keep a dog at the premises, despite previous orders stating they could not.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to terminate the tenancy because the tenant chose not to comply with multiple notices and the Tribunal's order. They found it inequitable to refuse termination given the repeated breaches.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, specifically section 56, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the tenant had chosen not to comply with multiple notices and the Tribunal's order, making it inequitable to refuse termination.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant who brought the case, as the tenancy was terminated.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, repeatedly ignoring orders from the Tribunal could lead to the termination of their tenancy.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs of the dog at the premises and evidence of multiple notices were important in the decision.