Tenant Ordered to Remove Dogs from Property
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to remove dogs from the property because the tenant breached the tenancy agreement by keeping pets, which was explicitly prohibited.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant must comply with the terms of the tenancy agreement, including prohibitions on keeping pets.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal ordered the tenant to remove dogs from the property due to a breach of the tenancy agreement.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to remove dogs from the property due to a breach of the tenancy agreement which prohibited pets.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5190172 1
[2025] NZTT 5190172
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: Unit/[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The Tenant shall remove any dogs immediately from the property at [ADDRESS], Mount Wellington.
Reasons:
1. The Landlord attended the hearing by telephone. The Tenant did not answer the two telephone calls made by the Tribunal.
2. The landlord has sought an Order to remove the Tenants two dogs from the property.
3. The Landlord submitted Clause 20 of the Tenancy Agreement signed by the Tenant does not permit any dogs to live at the property. There is also an additional clause in the Agreement that re-iterates that a dog or cat is not permitted. Part of the reason behind this is because of the high-density building structure renders it unsuitable for pets. There has already been a complaint from a neighbour residing in the complex regarding the dog noise. The Landlord submitted their colleague had also checked the property a few days prior to the hearing and the dogs were still present. The landlord provided photographs of the multi-storey complex, dogs and Tenancy Agreement.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5190172 2
4. In considering the evidence, I find the Tenant is in breach of the tenancy agreement as the tenancy does not permit dogs at the property. The dogs shall be removed immediately.
A Aiolupotea 16 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5190172 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5190172 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's argument that the tenancy agreement prohibited dogs was accepted by the Tribunal.
- The Tribunal found that the tenant was in breach of the agreement because dogs were not allowed.
- The landlord provided photographs of the complex, dogs, and tenancy agreement as evidence.
- A complaint from a neighbour about dog noise supported the landlord's case.
- The landlord's colleague confirmed the dogs were still present at the property shortly before the hearing.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tenant was ordered to remove dogs from the property.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant could keep dogs at the rental property despite a prohibition in the tenancy agreement.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant must remove the dogs because they violated the tenancy agreement's pet policy.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were cited in the judgment.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most important argument was that the tenancy agreement clearly stated that pets were not allowed.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant 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 tenancy agreement, especially regarding pet policies.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs of the multi-story complex, dogs, and the tenancy agreement were presented as evidence.