Tenant Ordered to Remove One Pet Dog
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered a tenant to remove one of two pet dogs by a specific date because the tenant was in breach of the tenancy agreement. The landlord showed that the presence of more than one pet dog caused significant damage to the property.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant must comply with the terms of their tenancy agreement regarding pets.
📖 What the law says
This rule allows the Tenancy Tribunal to end a tenancy if the tenant has caused, allowed someone else to cause, or threatened to cause significant damage to the rental property. In this case, the landlord provided evidence of substantial damage caused by the presence of more than one pet dog.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal ordered the tenant to remove one of the two pet dogs by a specified date.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to remove one of two pet dogs by a specific date due to a breach of the tenancy agreement. The landlord presented evidence showing substantial damage caused by the presence of more than one pet dog.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5170491 1
[2025] NZTT 5170491
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: Unit/Flat [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME] is breaching his tenancy agreement with Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities by keeping more than one pet dog on his premises.
2. [NAME] must dispose of all but one dog by Sunday 27 April 2025.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
2. The landlord has applied for a conditional termination of the tenancy under section 55(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, due to substantial damage being caused by the tenant’s breach of having more than one pet dog on the premises.
3. Mr [NAME] accepts that currently he has two dogs on the premises, “Simber” and “Thunder”. He accepted that this is a breach of his tenancy agreement. Mr [NAME] stated that it is his intention to re-home one of the dogs, “Simber”. Mr [NAME] is waiting for a friend to take the dog.
4. The [COMPANY] representative produced a photograph which shows two dogs in the yard, and the yard to be virtually devoid of any vegetation. It appears from the photograph that the dogs have spread dirt from the yard onto the common driveway, beyond Mr [NAME]’s fence.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5170491 2
5. The [COMPANY] representative stated that at the most recent tenancy inspection there was an overwhelming ammonia smell inside and outside the premises caused by dog urine. The inside of the premises was heavily soiled with dog hair.
6. Mr [NAME] stated that he had since had the carpet cleaned. He also stated that the yard had always been barren.
7. A report provided by [COMPANY] as part of their application states that the fence has also been damaged, partially by the dogs constantly jumping at it.
8. On the balance of probabilities I am satisfied that substantial damage has been caused at the property directly by Mr [NAME] breaching his tenancy agreement by having more than one dog on the premises.
9. Section 55(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) allows the Tribunal to make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has caused, or has permitted any other person to cause, or has threatened to cause, substantial damage to the premises;
10. Section 55(1A) of the RTA states that “the Tribunal may, instead of making a final termination order for the non-payment of rent under subsection (1)(a), make a conditional order if, but only if, it is satisfied that…” and certain conditions are set out.
11. These subsections make it clear that conditional terminations are only available for rent breaches. The Tribunal does not have a power to order a conditional termination for breaches relating to damage or substantial damage to a premises.
12. Terminating a tenancy is a final remedy and if the landlord seeks this they must make the application unequivocally and under the correct section of the Act.
13. This has not occurred in this case.
C Lamdin
10 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5170491 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5170491 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 tenant admitted to having two dogs on the property, which was a breach of his tenancy agreement.
- Substantial damage was caused to the property due to the tenant having more than one dog.
- A photograph showed two dogs in the yard, which was devoid of vegetation, and dirt spread onto the common driveway.
- There was an overwhelming ammonia smell from dog urine and heavy soiling with dog hair inside and outside the premises.
- The fence was damaged, partially by the dogs constantly jumping at it.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to remove one of two pet dogs by a specific date.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant could keep two pet dogs on the premises while in breach of the tenancy agreement.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant must remove one of the dogs because the presence of more than one pet dog caused substantial damage to the property.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 55(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1,986 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the evidence showing that the presence of more than one pet dog caused substantial damage to the property.
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 pet restrictions outlined in their tenancy agreement to avoid facing similar consequences.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs showing the condition of the yard and the damage caused by the dogs, and a report detailing the damage to the fence and the state of the premises.