Dogs featured prominently in a collection of the strangest animal-related Tenancy Tribunal decisions. Photo / Ben Fraser
Part one of unusual tenancy Tenancy Tribunal decisions
The dog that came back from the dead, the cat that caused a flood, the lamb in a nappy, the dog that ate the staircase and the parrot which acted as a meth detector - these are some of the most unusual cases heard by the Tenancy Tribunal.
With the Government’s law change allowing more tenants to have pets, the Herald looked at tribunal cases involving animals.
The Government reversed the 90-day no-cause eviction, meaning landlords don’t now need to give specific reasons to end a tenancy, but it also relaxed tenancy pet rules.
Housing Minister Chris Bishop and Regulation Minister David Seymour announced the changes last April.
“Pets are important members of many Kiwi families. It’s estimated that around 64% of New Zealand households own at least one pet, and 59% of people who don’t have a pet would like to get one,” Bishop said.
Under the Government changes, a pet bond can be charged.
Tenants will be liable for any damage.
The number of pets can be limited.
Landlords will be able to withhold consent on “reasonable grounds”.
Landlords will need to give a valid reason why a pet or pets are not allowed.
The Herald canvassed a range of tribunal decisions to find seven of the stranger cases involving animals.
A tenant of Mangonui in the Far North told the tribunal her distinctive three-legged dog, Cruise, had died.
The dog had been destroyed, the tenant said.
“I have listened to the recording of that hearing. The adjudicator was told unequivocally by the tenant that Cruise had been put down,” the adjudicator said in the matter last year.
However, the dog then “reappeared” at the property.
Even worse, Cruise bit a police officer, giving the story a bizarre and ironic twist.
A tenant’s cat reportedly caused a flood by bumping the kitchen tap while the tenants were asleep.
The tenants, who lived on Lichfield St in the centre of Christchurch, admitted they had up to five cats, when their tenancy agreement only allowed them to keep one.
“The cost claimed arises out of a flood that apparently occurred when the tenants’ cat bumped the kitchen tap while the tenants were sleeping,” the decision in 2022 said.
Photographic evidence in this dispute over animal odours and other issues showed a lamb wearing a nappy inside a house in Clinton, South Otago.
“The landlord referred to the photos the tenants supplied showing a lamb inside with a nappy on, plastic floor covering and dog cages inside where the dogs were housed,” the decision said.
The landlord complained of strong odours of cigarette smoke and animal smells, and spent $1759 having the property cleaned.
“The tenant claims she never noticed the smell given she lived amongst it and became accustomed to it,” the decision said.
The damage to an O Ōtāhuhu property was so extensive in this case that the tribunal summary explicitly includes reference to “wall damage from pet scratching walls and eating the staircase”.
Repairs of $1000 for that damage were awarded to the landlord.
The tenant argued he should not be responsible for the damages and rent arrears because he had not been living at the premises when the damage occurred.
The damage was more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants had not disproved liability for the damage, the tribunal ruled.
This Nelson case included the wonderfully specific and chaotic detail of a dog dragging a slow cooker off a kitchen bench, damaging a tile at the rental property.
That cost the tenants $368 to get the tile fixed.
“The damage... is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage,” the tribunal ruled.
A landlord blamed an undeclared dog for extensively chewing French doors at a Gisborne home.
But the tenants offered alternative culprits, including stray cats and multiple toddlers.
The landlord believed the tenants had a dog at the property, contrary to the tenancy agreement.
That dog had likely been kept inside and had chewed the wooden door panels, the tribunal heard.
The door handle was also broken and unable to be repaired or secure the doors. The tenants were ordered to pay $1814 to the landlord.
A tenant successfully used a healthy “support parrot” as living evidence to disprove a serious meth contamination claim.
The landlord claimed the tenant contaminated the premises with methamphetamine.
The tribunal summarised the bird’s involvement.
“If he had manufactured methamphetamine or used methamphetamine in the levels found at the apartment, then his support parrot would have been poisoned and would have exhibited signs of exposure, including respiratory issues and loss of feathers.
“[The tenant/s] parrot is in good health and never suffered from any signs of contamination,” the decision said.
Where the property is, who owns it and who rents it were all suppressed.
The landlord’s claims for methamphetamine contamination and breaches of the body corporate rules were dismissed as not proven.
Anne Gibson has been the Herald‘s property editor for 25 years, written books and covered property extensively here and overseas.