The tenant and the landlords, all of whom have name suppression, developed a friendship throughout the course of the tenancy but a tribunal has found this wholly deteriorated over the rabbit situation.
After the tenant captured footage of the landlords and their friends peering into her home, she had become "frightened" and moved out.
She later made a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal that she had been harassed by the landlords, who then made counter-applications against the woman.
The tribunal's recently released decision, which dismisses both parties' applications, sets out the rabbit-related row.
It said the tenant moved into the rural one-bedroom unit in November 2021.
Adjacent to the unit was a shed and an office which were used by the landlords, who resided around 50 metres from the tenant in a separate dwelling, for work purposes.
The tenancy agreement stated the tenant could have two "bunny rabbits", although it was agreed between the parties that she was actually permitted to have three.
However, the landlords told the tribunal the rabbits were to be kept in the shed or outside and that they were meant to be desexed.
The tenant also said it was her intention to have the two female pets desexed.
"Unfortunately, there was a window of opportunity where all three rabbits not being desexed meant that the two female pets got pregnant," the decision stated.
In February this year, the two litters were born, meaning the woman went on to have at least 18 rabbits in her care.
She wanted to keep the babies inside the house and told the tribunal a discussion was had with the landlords who told her they were not keen on there being animals inside the unit but acknowledged the pets were vulnerable.
The landlords, however, told the tribunal they were not in agreement with them being inside as they were worried about damage being caused and it far exceeded the original agreed upon number of rabbits.
Soon enough, the landlords began concerning themselves with the whereabouts of the rabbits and their condition.
This became obvious to the tenant when she captured on a security camera that, in her absence, the landlords and their friends were looking through the windows and doors of her unit, with one person urinating outside and another attempting to open a window to gain access to the property.
"As a result of the landlords' alleged conduct, the tenant felt so frightened that she decided to move out. The tenant vacated the premises on March 27, 2022."
Two days later, she returned to gather her belongings with police.
After the tenant filed her application with the tribunal, claiming she was harassed during the course of the tenancy and that her quiet enjoyment was thereby disturbed, the landlords filed theirs.
They claimed the woman breached the tenancy agreement when she allowed rabbits that were not desexed to live inside the unit and when she did not remove the baby rabbits.
In the other application, they claimed compensation in relation to alleged unpaid rent, cleaning costs, refilling of gas bottles, and garden works which included holes caused by the rabbits.
The landlords refuted the tenant's claims that there was any harassment.
They say they had to walk past her window to go to another paddock and that when they peered in, this was in order to see what was happening with the rabbits.
Similarly, the tenant denied she was liable for any unpaid rent or cleaning costs, and argued she had already paid for the gas and the garden work.
She was adamant that the rabbits did not create any holes.
Following two hearings on the matter, the tribunal ruled it was a term of the tenancy agreement that the woman was permitted to have three rabbits and that they needed to be desexed upon arrival.
"It was indeed the situation with the rabbits which led the relationship to sour. I believe that any reasonable landlord in this situation would have become disgruntled at a tenant who brought rabbits that were not desexed onto a property which then immediately produced a large number of other rabbits."
The tribunal acknowledged the landlords and their friends had looked inside the tenant's house but found they only did so because they were curious to see what was happening with the pets.
There was no established pattern of harassment, the tribunal ruled, dismissing the woman's claim.
The landlords applications were also dismissed due to a lack of evidence.
The tribunal ordered the $1600 bond to be returned to the woman.
- By Tara Shaskey
