Tenant Must Remove Dog from Rental Property or Face Eviction
📌 In brief
A tenant was ordered to remove a dog from their rental property within two working days or face eviction. The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that the tenant must comply with the lease terms prohibiting pets, despite previous warnings.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant must comply with the terms of their lease, including prohibitions on pets.
📖 What the law says
This section 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 first give the other party a notice, allowing at least 10 working days to fix the issue.
This section outlines the types of orders the Tenancy Tribunal can make. These include declaring the rights or responsibilities of parties, ordering a party to give possession of premises to another, or ordering a party to pay money.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal granted a conditional termination order for a tenant to remove a dog from the premises.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered a tenant to remove a dog from rental premises within two working days or face termination of the tenancy. The decision was based on the tenant's breach of lease terms prohibiting pets and the landlord's compliance with providing a 14-day notice.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5131828 1
[2025] NZTT 5131828
TENANCY TRIBUNAL - Remote Location
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME] must permanently remove the dog from the tenancy premises by Tuesday 4 March 2025.
2. If the tenant fails to permanently remove the dog within 2 working days of the due dates the tenancy at [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises.
Reasons:
1. The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant was called twice but she did not answer the calls to her phone. I am satisfied she knew about the hearing.
2. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy because the tenant has a dog at the tenancy premises, the unit where she lives.
Should a conditional termination order be made?
3. The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable – very unfair - 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
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5131828 2
days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
4. The tenant breached her obligations by having a dog at the unit. I have been provided with a copy of a letter sent in October 2024 which explains that the tenant is not allowed a dog at the premises and why.
6. On 30 October 2024 the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant but the breach was not remedied within the required period. Because the tenant can remove the dog, I have considered this as a breach capable of remedy.
7. In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy. These are:
• The history of the tenancy.
• Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings.
• Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future.
• Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed.
• The conduct of the landlord.
• The gravity of the breach.
• Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
8. The landlord provided me with a photo taken in 2023 which shows a very similar dog to the one in the photo taken on 13 January 2025. Both photos show a dog at the unit. The latest shows the dog tied to a pole by the front door.
9. I know the tenant was advised in October 2024 that her request to have a dog was declined. She was served a 14 day notice. The dog was still there on 13 January 2025. This application was filed and served on the tenant. A housing services manager (HSM) gave evidence at the hearing and confirmed the dog was at the house at an inspection on 15 January 2025. The HSM has also seen the dog more recently because it can be seen from the street when it is tied up by the front door.
10. It seems most likely to me there has been a persistent failure by the tenant to remove the dog after repeated warnings, and that is unlikely the tenant will comply with the tenancy obligations in the future without an order.
11. The HSM said that the dog has behaved aggressively at the two recent visits to the unit. When the HSM went to there to arrange the January inspection the dog was inside the house and charged the front door, making the door handle
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5131828 3
rattle. It appeared the tenant could not control the dog and the tenant spoke to them through a window. During the inspection on 15 January 2025 the dog was shut inside the bathroom and it barked aggressively throughout the inspection. At the end of the inspection the dog barked aggressively and kept charging at the front door.
12. From this, it seems most likely to me the breach by the tenant has been deliberate. The dog’s aggressive behaviour concerns me and elevates this to a situation where termination is a proportionate response to the breach. I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
13. Despite my finding that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, I am satisfied the tenant should be given one last chance to permanently remove the dog rather than lose her home. I have granted a conditional termination. See section 78(3) RTA.
14. 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) RTA.
15. Suppression is not allowed because there is public interest in the management of social housing.
[NAME]
18 February 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5131828 4
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5131828 5
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 tenant was notified multiple times that pets are not allowed.
- The landlord provided evidence showing the persistence of the pet violation despite warnings.
- The dog displayed aggressive behavior during inspections, raising safety concerns.
- The tribunal considered it inequitable to continue the tenancy without terminating due to the severity of the breach.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant did not answer calls or attend the hearing to provide their side of the story.
- There was no evidence presented that the tenant had attempted to remedy the situation.
- The aggressive behavior of the dog was not addressed by the tenant, posing a risk to others.
- The tribunal did not find the breach to be inadvertent or accidental, ruling out leniency.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tenant must remove the dog from the rental property within two working days or face eviction.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about a tenant keeping a dog in a rental property despite a prohibition on pets in the lease agreement.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant a conditional termination order because the tenant repeatedly ignored warnings and failed to remove the dog from the premises.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 56(1) and 78(3), were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the persistent failure by the tenant to remove the dog despite repeated warnings.
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 they comply with the terms of their lease, especially regarding pet restrictions.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence included a letter declining the tenant's request to have a dog, a 14-day notice, and reports of the dog's aggressive behavior.