Doggone: Kāinga Ora canine kerfuffle at the Tenancy Tribunal

Friday, 1 August 2025

Excess dogs left the Nawton Kāinga Ora property with ‘odour from the dogs’ urine and faeces’ (file photo).

A Nawton Kāinga Ora resident has been given an ultimatum - the dogs or your home.

Details of the canine kerfuffle have been spelt out in the Tenancy Tribunal ruling for the tenant, which noted “this matter has had a lengthy history”.

“The tenant resides in a small unit. Under the terms of his tenancy agreement, the tenant is entitled to have one dog living at the premises,” the ruling said.

The man requested permission to have more than one dog at the unit, a request that was denied.

Kāinga Ora then moved to terminate the man’s tenancy, citing the fact he had three dogs at the premises.

The tenant also failed to comply with orders to remove two of the dogs from the property.

Kāinga Ora attempted to get the tenant booted out as he lived with three dogs.

“The landlord’s evidence, which I accept, is that three dogs remain living at the premises with the tenant,” the ruling said.

“The dog ‘Simba’ has been with the tenant for a lengthy period and is the dog the tenant is entitled to keep at the premises.

“The landlord’s evidence, which includes photos, is that a dog named ‘Summer’ and an unnamed puppy are also at the premises. I accept this evidence. No approval for either of the excess dogs to be at the premises has been given by the landlord.”

The ruling also noted the breaches “have been deliberate”.

“The breach has resulted in damage to the interior of the property including odour from the dogs urine and faeces.

“The premises are small and at least two of the dogs are large.”

The ruling also revealed the tenant had told Kāinga Ora that if any order was made by the Tribunal to remove dogs, “he would simply remove them on the day when the landlord checked to see if they were present and arrange for them to be returned”.

The Tribunal said that if the tenancy was not terminated, “there would be potential for ongoing damage to the premises as well as further nuisance to the neighbouring properties”.

The Tribunal said that while “it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy”, they were “prepared to give the tenant one final chance”.

“Whether the tenant takes that opportunity or not, is a matter for the tenant.”

The tenant was ordered to remove two dogs by a deadline of July 2 this year, but noted that if at any stage over the next 150 days Kāinga Ora finds evidence of more than one dog on the premises, “the tenancy will be terminated”.