Tenant Ordered to Remove Pigeons from Premises
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to remove pigeons from the premises and prohibited them from keeping pigeons in the future due to health concerns.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant must remove pigeons from the premises and refrain from keeping pigeons in the future.
📖 What the law says
This rule states that the Tenancy Tribunal has the power to resolve disagreements between landlords and tenants about their tenancy. This includes deciding if a property is covered by the Act and if a tenancy agreement exists.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal ordered the tenant to remove pigeons from the premises and prohibited them from keeping pigeons in the future.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to remove pigeons from the premises and prohibited them from keeping pigeons in the future due to health concerns.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5187672 1
[2025] NZTT 5187672
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT HUTT VALLEY | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI TE AWAKAIRANGI
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. On or before Wednesday 7 May 2025, the tenant is required to remove, or arrange for the removal of all pigeons that are currently living in the premises.
2. If the pigeons are not removed as ordered above, the landlord is granted permission to enter the premises to remove the pigeons between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry.
3. The tenant is to refrain from keeping pigeons at the premises. (Section 77(2)(m) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
4. This hearing is closed unless the landlord amends the application to include termination of the tenancy. The landlord will inform the Tribunal by 21 May 2025, if the application is to be amended to include termination. If the landlord does not inform the Tribunal regarding termination by that date, this application will be closed however the landlord could make a new application for termination.
5. No order is made for repairs to the premises until the issue of termination is resolved.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5187672 2
Reasons:
1. Only the landlord attended the hearing.
2. The landlord has provided evidence that proves the tenant is unable to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The premises is seriously unclean and could be determined to be currently uninhabitable for health reasons. The tenant has allowed pigeons to live in the premises. The premises is currently unoccupied because the tenant has health and well being issues. The pigeons are in the premises while the tenant is in care. The pigeons are not owned by the tenant. Therefore the Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord has a right to remove the pigeons if the tenant does not arrange for them removed them.
3. The Tribunal has suggested an adjournment for the landlord to apply for termination. The evidence provided to the Tribunal suggests that the tenant is past being able to live independently and needs to be in some form of assisted living. The landlord will inform the Tribunal if the application is to be amended.
4. The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for permission to carry out remedial work and cleaning and rubbish removal to the value of many thousands of dollars. I am not persuaded that it is in any party’s interest to carry out that work when it is likely that the damage will reoccur if the tenant reoccupies the property.
[NAME] 30 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5187672 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5187672 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 pigeons are making the premises seriously unclean and potentially uninhabitable.
- The tenant is unable to maintain the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
- The pigeons are present while the tenant is in care due to health and wellbeing issues.
- The pigeons are not owned by the tenant, indicating they are not essential to the tenant's living situation.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord's request for extensive remedial work and cleaning was not approved because it might not address the underlying issue.
- No order was made for repairs to the premises until the issue of termination is resolved.
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 pigeons from the premises and prohibited from keeping pigeons in the future.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about pigeons living in the premises and the impact on the cleanliness and habitability of the property.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant must remove the pigeons and refrain from keeping them in the future because the pigeons were causing serious uncleanliness and health concerns.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 77(2)(m) was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the pigeons were causing serious uncleanliness and health concerns, making the premises uninhabitable.
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?
For someone in a similar situation, they may be ordered to remove animals causing health and cleanliness issues from their premises.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence showing the condition of the premises and the presence of pigeons was presented.