Tenant Ordered to Remove Problematic Pet Within 14 Days
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered a tenant to remove a dog from their rental property within 14 days because the dog posed health and safety risks and was causing disturbances to neighbors.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant must comply with the terms of their tenancy agreement and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, including restrictions on pets that pose a health and safety risk or cause nuisance to neighbours.
📖 What the law says
This rule allows the Tenancy Tribunal to end a tenancy if one party has broken the tenancy agreement or the Act. If the problem can be fixed, the party who complained must have given the other party at least 10 working days' notice to fix it, and they failed to do so.
This rule outlines a tenant's basic duties, such as paying rent on time, using the property mainly for living, keeping it reasonably clean, and telling the landlord about any damage or needed repairs. When moving out, the tenant must leave the property, remove their belongings, and ensure it is reasonably clean and tidy.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal granted a conditional termination order requiring the tenant to remove the dog from the premises within 14 days.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to remove a dog from the premises within 14 days due to health and safety risks and nuisance to neighbours, as per the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5184431 1
[2025] NZTT 5184431
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME_2] must permanently remove the dog from the premises at [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] by Monday 12 May 2025.
2. If the tenant fails to permanently remove the dog within 2 working days of the due date, the tenancy at [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] will terminate, and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was assisted by her daughter, [NAME_3].
2. The landlord has applied for conditional termination of the tenancy because the tenant has a dog living at the premises. The premises is located along a shared driveway with 17 other [NAME_1] properties. The landlord wants the dog to be removed within 7 days otherwise the tenancy terminates.
3. The tenant says the dog is not aggressive, there are no issues whatsoever, and he is a good guard dog.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5184431 2
Should a conditional termination order be made?
4. 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. 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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
5. The tenant breached their obligations by having a dog at the premises and disturbing neighbours. On 10 June 2024, 23 August 2024, and 6 January 2025, the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant, but the breach was not remedied within the required period. The landlord has received multiple complaints from multiple neighbours of the dog roaming freely, defecating on neighbours’ lawns, chasing and attacking children causing injury, and continuous barking.
6. It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy as the tenant is in breach of their tenancy agreement, and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord will allow a pet so long as the pet is not health and safety risk and it is not likely to, or does not, attack any person, or cause nuisance to neighbours. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the dog has attacked children which poses an ongoing serious health and safety risk. I also find that the dog has caused nuisance to neighbours by continuous barking, defecating on their lawns, and aggressive behaviour.
7. In accordance with section 40(2)(c) RTA, the tenant must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
8. The tenant’s dog appears to be a large pit-bull/mastiff type, and it has behaved aggressively towards the landlord at a recent inspection. On the tenant’s own evidence, she agrees her dog has been getting ‘angry’ at the landlord. The landlord has also provided a recent video of the dog chasing children down the shared driveway. This demonstrates to me that the dog is not being kept under control at all times as is required by the Dog Control Act 1996. I share the landlord’s concerns about the safety of children living in the vicinity.
9. Despite my finding that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, I find that the tenant should be given one final chance to permanently remove the dog rather than losing her home. I have granted a conditional termination. See section 78(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. However, instead of the 7 day period requested by the landlord, I will allow 14 days for the tenant to find another home for her dog.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5184431 3
10. 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A Macpherson 28 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5184431 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. 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].
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/
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The dog has attacked children, posing a serious health and safety risk.
- The dog has caused nuisance to neighbors through continuous barking and aggressive behavior.
- Multiple complaints from neighbors indicate the dog is not being kept under control as required.
- The dog's aggressive behavior includes chasing and attacking children, causing injuries.
- The tenant failed to remedy the breach despite receiving multiple 14-day notices.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The dog is not aggressive and there are no issues with it, according to the tenant.
- The dog is a good guard dog and does not cause any problems.
- The landlord's requests are unreasonable since the dog has not caused significant damage.
- The dog has not disturbed the peace or comfort of the neighbors.
- The tenant believes the dog should be allowed to stay since it has not been proven dangerous.
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 a dog from the premises within 14 days.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant's dog should be removed due to health and safety risks and disturbances to neighbors.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to grant a conditional termination order because the dog had attacked children and was causing disturbances to neighbors, violating the tenancy agreement and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 56(1) and 40(2)(c), were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the dog posed a serious health and safety risk and was causing nuisance to neighbors, thus violating the tenancy agreement.
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 that their pet complies with the terms of their tenancy agreement and does not pose a health and safety risk or cause nuisance to neighbors.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence included complaints from neighbors, videos of the dog's behavior, and previous notices served by the landlord.