• The Tribunal finds that the tenant is in breach of each of the terms of her tenancy agreement referred to by SAHT;
• The Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has permitted an interference (by her dogs) with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of persons residing in the immediate vicinity;
• The termination of the tenancy has no direct legal effect on the tenant's ownership and possession of the two dogs, and has no direct effect on the currency of the Dangerous Dogs orders;
• In those circumstances, the Tribunal is as yet unwilling to make an order for possession, even with a suspension of its effect;
• In the Tribunal's view, the Council can reasonably be expected to use the powers at its disposal to enforce the orders or otherwise resolve the problem, and this would resolve the problem without the collateral damage of the tenant being evicted.

Residential Tenancy - Landlord application - Conduct - Tenant caused or permitted - Interference with reasonable peace, comfort or privacy

Residential Tenancies Act 1995 ss 87, 90, 110

Mr McLean, Mr Williams and a representative of the applicant's Mount Gambier Office attended

Made under the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 ss 87, 90 and 110(1)

1. This is an application for the tenancy to be terminated.
2. This is the second full hearing arranged, following a directions hearing. The first full hearing was discontinued when electronic noise from Ms Beck's connection obscured much of her speech, and when I alerted Ms Beck to this, it appeared that she terminated the connection. I was unable to reach her by telephone after that.
3. For the hearing of 13 October 2025, the Tribunal Registry arranged that Ms Beck would participate in the hearing using a telephone at the Mount Gambier SAHT office. However, she did not attend as arranged. Given the previous telephone difficulties, I did not attempt to call her on her mobile telephone, and proceeded in her absence.
4. Ms Beck resides in the premises as the tenant under a residential tenancy agreement with SAHT as the landlord. That agreement is a residential tenancy agreement for the purposes of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 (the Act).
5. SAHT has been contacted in relation to two dogs kept by Ms Beck. Nearby residents have reported that the dogs have killed a neighbour's cat and have acted aggressively towards people in the vicinity. It is of considerable concern that there is a kindergarten in close proximity to the premises.
6. On 17 July 2025, the City of Mount Gambier placed Dangerous Dog Orders on each dog. In summary, the orders required Ms Beck to ensure that the dogs:
   • are desexed and microchipped
   • are kept from escaping from the premises
   • wear a compliant collar,
   • are muzzled except when confined,

• complete an approved training course with the dogs; and
• take all reasonable steps to prevent any further problematic behaviours by the dogs.

1. SAHT considers that Ms Beck has refused to comply with the orders and applied to the Tribunal on the basis that she has caused or permitted an interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of persons residing in the immediate vicinity. This was said to be a breach of term 3.2(b) of the tenancy agreement:

S3.2 You will not interfere with or allow people who live with or visit you to interfere with, the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of other people in the vicinity. For example, you will not: > > b) keep things or animals that will be a nuisance or danger to other people

2. During the hearing, SAHT advanced that alternatively, the tenancy should be terminated for a serious breach of term 29 of the tenancy agreement:

29. You will meet the local authority's requirements, for example getting rid of rubbish, keeping animals, complying with noise restrictions.

3. Mr Derek Ferguson of the City of Mount Gambier gave evidence. He was the officer who caused the Dangerous Dog Orders to be issued. He confirmed that Ms Beck had not, as far as he was aware, complied with any part of either order. He said that while the orders remain in force, if the Council can apprehend the dogs outside the yard of the premises, they will impound them and not release them until there is full compliance with the orders.
4. I queried Mr Ferguson about enforcement of the orders, and consequences of non-compliance. Mr Ferguson stressed that the Council was and remains willing to accept the dogs if they are voluntarily surrendered. If not, and if Ms Beck continues not to comply, the next step is a set of $10,000 fines. It is possible for the Council to obtain an order to seize the dogs. The council has been holding off on further action awaiting the outcome of the Tribunal application. He estimated that, with associated right of appeal, it might take 30 to 60 days to seize the dogs via such an order.
5. The SAHT representatives expressed understandable concern for the risks posed by the dogs to children and others attending the nearby kindergarten. SAHT seeks an order terminating Ms Beck's tenancy and requiring her to move out. I note SAHT's undertaking that should that be the outcome, SAHT would not apply the service exclusion that generally follows Tribunal-ordered terminations of tenancy.

1. The evidence from SAHT and Mr Ferguson, coupled with the Dangerous Dog Orders, is sufficient for me to find that Ms Beck is in breach of each of the terms of her tenancy agreement referred to by SAHT. In relation to s 90, I am satisfied that Ms Beck has permitted an interference (by her dogs) with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of persons residing in the immediate vicinity. Of itself, that would make it open to make the requested order, that Ms Beck must move out.
2. Logically:
   • If Ms Beck were to comply with the Council orders, she would no longer be in breach of her tenancy agreement;
   • If Ms Beck were to voluntarily surrender the dogs, she would no longer be in breach of her tenancy agreement
   • If she keeps the dogs and continues not to comply with the Council orders, the Council has enforcement powers including a power to seize the dogs. Logically, if that power were exercised, Ms Beck would no longer be in breach of her tenancy agreement.
3. In contrast, termination of Ms Beck's tenancy has no direct legal effect on her ownership and possession of the two dogs, and has no direct effect on the currency of the Dangerous Dogs orders. It is an outcome that at best might indirectly resolve the problem, for example if the dogs were left behind and able to be apprehended by the Council. A termination of Ms Beck's tenancy here, forcing her to relocate, would certainly reduce the risk in relation to the kindergarten (clearly a highly desirable change) but would also move the problematic non-compliance with the Dangerous Dog orders to another location.
4. In those circumstances, I am as yet unwilling to make an order for possession, even with a suspension of its effect. However, the present status quo is unacceptable; Ms Beck cannot simply go on indefinitely keeping the dogs while refusing to comply with the Council orders regarding them. However, in my view, the Council can reasonably be expected to use the powers at its disposal to enforce the orders or otherwise resolve the problem, and this would resolve the problem without the collateral damage of Ms Beck being evicted.
5. On the other hand, given that Ms Beck is in breach of the agreement, I do not consider it appropriate to summarily dismiss the application. While it can be hoped that Council's enforcement of its order will resolve the situation, there can be no certainty, and as noted above, the current situation cannot be permitted to continue indefinitely. I will therefore adjourn the matter for six months, during which time I anticipate that SAHT will stay abreast of Council enforcement actions. I give the landlord leave to seek a further hearing if the situation materially changes.

1. I adjourn further consideration of this application for a period of six months commencing on the date of this order.
2. The landlord may contact the Tribunal in writing and request an urgent hearing at any time prior to the end of this period, if it considers that there has been a material change in the situation, justifying termination of Ms Beck's tenancy.
3. If no request has been received within this period then the application will be dismissed without a further hearing.