Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5427902 — 14-day notice at 130 Rosier Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602
Published 4 March 2026 · Application 5427902
Mixed / unclear
- 14-day notice
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Mixed / unclear
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
C Lamdin
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- The tenancy of Aaliyah Makau Tuapiki at 130 Rosier Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 is terminated, and possession is granted to Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For Alan Mcardle, at 11.59 pm on Friday 13 March 2026.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing represented by Mr Springett. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
Should the tenancy be terminated?
- 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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- 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.
- The landlord served the tenant four 14-day notices to remedy a breach under section 56 of the RTA. All the notices were served on 19 December 2025.
- The four notices are for the following: a. Exceeding maximum number of occupants (3), b. Keeping a pet dog in contravention of a condition of the tenancy agreement, c. Having car parts, tyres and rubbish around the premises, d. Using or permitting the premises to be used for unlawful purposes. Exceeding the maximum number of occupants
- The tenancy began on 14 November 2025. The tenancy agreement records the maximum occupants allowed is two adults and one child. “Three occupants” implies three occupants living at the address. No reason has been given as to why it would be reasonable to set a limit of only three people including visitors in the house at one time.
- An inspection on 18 December 2025 showed that one bedroom appeared to be being used by two adults and another by one child. A third and fourth bedroom appeared to be being used by a further three people. A water rates invoice from this period showed the water usage exceeded the upper limit for 6 adults.
- Despite the tenancy agreement limiting the occupants to 3, this does not mean the tenants cannot have visitors and that visitors cannot stay over.
- The inspection was conducted a week before Christmas, a time when many people are mobile for family reasons. I also note that it is only one inspection that has been conducted, one month into the tenancy.
- On the strength of the information produced today I must ask myself whether on the balance of probabilities it has been proved that there are more than three occupants at this premises. I am not satisfied that it has been proved. Keeping a pet dog
- The landlord says the tenants are keeping a pet dog in contravention of the tenancy agreement which records under Section 3 that pets are not allowed.
- Pets are not prohibited under the RTA. A tenant should always seek permission of a landlord before keeping a pet, and a landlord should not unreasonably refuse a tenant’s request to keep a pet. Whether or not a pet can be kept is to be decided on the circumstances and facts of a specific case.
- In this case, the landlord says the tenants have not sought permission to keep the dog at the premises. The landlord says the dog is a huge dog, and to him it appears to be a guard dog or an attack dog. Photographs provided by the landlord do show this to be a very big dog. The landlord is not comfortable with having to deal with a dog of that size, particularly if he has to attend the premises in an emergency either by himself or with a contractor.
- When I consider this application I am persuaded that the tenant is in breach of their tenancy agreement. I am also persuaded on the landlord’s unopposed information that a dog of this size and of unknown character is not appropriate in this tenancy.
- If the tenants were engaging with the landlord on this matter and others, I would consider it draconian to terminate a tenancy for a bare breach of this condition.
- However, the tenants have not responded to any of the landlord’s 14-day notices to remedy, nor do they appear to have engaged with the landlord in any way. The landlord has concerns about unlawful activity at the premises and has noted modifications to the front gate (as well as other factors mentioned at paragraph 20 of this order.) Without engagement with the tenants, if the landlord wishes to have the dog removed from the premises, they have no other option but to seek termination of the tenancy.
- I must then address whether I believe it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
- The information before me today is that the tenant is breaching their tenancy agreement and refusing to engage with the landlord. I note the tenant has not attended the hearing today, nor sought an adjournment or given any explanation why they are unable to attend. In these circumstances I do not consider it is inequitable to terminate the tenancy for this breach.
- This claim is proved. Not removing car parts and rubbish
- The landlord says the tenants are keeping car parts, tyres, and rubbish at the premises and they want them removed.
- When I look at the photographs provided by the landlord, there are some tyres and wheels, two trailers, a bike and some belongings on a shed. I am not persuaded that this amounts to rubbish. I do not consider the belongings exceed what many people keep at their houses.
- This claim is not proved. Using or allowing premises to be used for an unlawful activity
- The landlord says the tenants are using or allowing the premises to be used for an unlawful activity.
- The landlord refers to a newspaper article that reports police and criminal activity at a West Auckland address that corresponds with police activity at this address.
- The landlord also says the following factors give weight to their claim that criminal activity is occurring at this address: a. Subsequent police “raids” at the address, b. The tenant installing two security cameras, c. The front gate being raised and wrapped in an opaque material so that activity at the property cannot be observed from the street, d. A bell being installed on the gate.
- Criminal activities are not breaches of the RTA. Neither the RTA nor the tenancy agreement addresses using the premises for an unlawful activity. This is therefore not a breach of either and I do not have any power under the RTA to terminate the tenancy because of this.
- This claim is not proved.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s1, s14, s3, s56, s56(1)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: termination 14day
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5427902?
The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Aaliyah Makau Tuapiki at 130 Rosier Road, Glen Eden,
How much money was awarded in case 5427902?
Verified claim lines are listed on this page.
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427902?
The primary dispute was 14-day notice.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427902?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13220959-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.