Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5403169 — 14-day notice at 305 Buckland Road, Mangere East, Auckland 2024

Decided 9 February 2026 · Published 9 February 2026 · Application 5403169

Mixed / unclear

14-day notice

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Mixed / unclear

From published order

Location

Auckland

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

T Harris

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

Agnes Tararo and Metua Oropo Kite Wireless Tua must a) return the carport to its original condition and b) discontinue use of extension cord to the carport area by Monday 2 March 2026, being 21 days from the date of this order.
If the tenants fail to return the carport to the original condition and discontinue use of extension cord by this date, a) the tenancy at 305 Buckland road Mangare East will terminate and b) the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises.

Reasons

This order amends the order dated 4 February 2026 correcting a typological error so that the tenancy address in the order reads 305 Buckland road.
As this order is amended as of 9 February 2026 the 21 days for compliance is also amended to be Monday, 2 March, 2026.The reasons and determination have not been altered and remain unchanged.
The landlord attended the hearing by video and one tenant, Ms Tararo, attended by telephone. The other tenant was telephoned but could not be contacted.
Ms Tararo asked that we speak to and question her advocate. No application for representation had been made to the Tribunal prior to the hearing and this was declined. Ms Tararo was able to represent herself during the hearing and no extra assistance was required.
The landlord has applied for an order that the tenant comply with the 14-day notices issued by returning a carport to its original condition and to stop connecting the carport to electricity from the house by and extension cord. If the tenant fails to do this then they seek termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and provisions of the RTA.

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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants have breached their obligations by boarding up and totally enclosing a carport turning it into a storage unit and teaching space without written permission from the landlord. The tenants also connect an electric extension cord from the house to the garage when using it.
The tenants use the carport for teaching during the week and on Sundays and said that they remove the extension cord when it is not in use.
The tenants claims that they had verbal consent from a previous property manager to make these alterations and that the tenant needs the extra space to store all her items. The tenants’ possessions were getting stolen from the open carport.
The landlord has no record of consent given to the tenant and to solve the storage concerns offered a garden shed to the tenants who declined saying that it would not be big enough to store all their items.
The landlord met with the tenant on 29 August 2025 and no resolution was reached.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 27 August 2025 to remove the illegal structure and another 14-day notice on 21 November 2025 to remove the electrical cord running power to the carport, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
The tenancy agreement states in clause 28. If you want to build structures, such as sheds, sleepouts, or garages on the premises, or make any alterations to it, you must first get our written permission.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1896,RTA, states that the tenant shall not make any alteration or addition of or to the premises, except in accordance with the tenancy agreement or with the prior written consent of the landlord. See section 42 RTA.
The landlord seeks removal of the structure and discontinued use of the extension cord and termination of the tenancy if these breaches are not remedied under section 56 RTA.
When determining if a tenancy should be terminated under section 56 RTA the Tribunal needs to consider if a breach or the tenancy agreement or RTA has occurred .
The next issues are, can the breach be remedied, and if a valid 14 day notice to remedy the breach has been issued and the other party has failed to remedy the default.
Once this is established the Tribunal must consider if the breach is of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The Tribunal often considers if the breach is serious, ongoing and the consequence of the breach on both parties. The likelihood of the tenant repeating the breach and overall fairness is also considered.
The closing in of the carport without written consent is a breach of the tenancy agreement and RTA.
The tenants have been issued correct notices and given opportunities to comply and have refused to. Having heard form Ms Tararo today she believes that she has authority not to comply based on an unsubstantiated verbal consent.
If verbal consent was given, it does not comply with the requirements of the RTA, or the terms of the tenancy agreement and I give this very little weight.
Is the breach serious? I find that it is. This is an unconsented building without certified electrical supply that is used for not only for storage but for meetings and teaching of young people.
Is the breach ongoing? Yes, this is intentional, and the tenant has refused to comply with the landlords’ requests and 14 days notices.
One of the consequences of the breach on the landlord and tenant are ongoing safety risks. The tenant is putting themselves and others in danger and this could also have consequences for the landlord if they ignore a dangerous situation.
I find that it is likely that the tenants will continue this breach based on their continued failure to comply with the landlord requests,14-day notices, RTA and the terms of their tenancy agreement.
In considering the overall fairness of termination, the landlord has given the tenant notice, opportunity and offers of providing another space for safe storage being a sensible option, which the tenant has flatly refused. The tenants show no signs of complying with 14-day notices and I find that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
Despite my finding that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, the landlord has requested that the tenant be given one more opportunity to comply before the tenancy is terminated. The tenant has 21 days from the date of this order, being 5pm, Monday, 2 March 2026 to return the carport to the original condition. If the tenant fails to return the carport to its original condition by that date and discontinue use of extension cord to the area, the tenancy will terminate. I have granted a conditional termination. See section 78(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order is enforceable for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

14-day notice Auckland

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s09, s21, s305, s42, s56, s56(1), s64(4), s78(3)

Key findings

Dispute theme: termination 14day

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5403169?

The tribunal order states: Agnes Tararo and Metua Oropo Kite Wireless Tua must

How much money was awarded in case 5403169?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5403169?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5403169?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13091524-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Order

Agnes Tararo and Metua Oropo Kite Wireless Tua must a) return the carport to its original condition and b) discontinue use of extension cord to the carport area by Monday 2 March 2026, being 21 days from the date of this order.

If the tenants fail to return the carport to the original condition and discontinue use of extension cord by this date, a) the tenancy at 305 Buckland road Mangare East will terminate and b) the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises.

Reasons

This order amends the order dated 4 February 2026 correcting a typological error so that the tenancy address in the order reads 305 Buckland road.

As this order is amended as of 9 February 2026 the 21 days for compliance is also amended to be Monday, 2 March, 2026.The reasons and determination have not been altered and remain unchanged.

The landlord attended the hearing by video and one tenant, Ms Tararo, attended by telephone. The other tenant was telephoned but could not be contacted.

Ms Tararo asked that we speak to and question her advocate. No application for representation had been made to the Tribunal prior to the hearing and this was declined. Ms Tararo was able to represent herself during the hearing and no extra assistance was required.

The landlord has applied for an order that the tenant comply with the 14-day notices issued by returning a carport to its original condition and to stop connecting the carport to electricity from the house by and extension cord. If the tenant fails to do this then they seek termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and provisions of the RTA.

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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenants have breached their obligations by boarding up and totally enclosing a carport turning it into a storage unit and teaching space without written permission from the landlord. The tenants also connect an electric extension cord from the house to the garage when using it.

The tenants use the carport for teaching during the week and on Sundays and said that they remove the extension cord when it is not in use.

The tenants claims that they had verbal consent from a previous property manager to make these alterations and that the tenant needs the extra space to store all her items. The tenants’ possessions were getting stolen from the open carport.

The landlord has no record of consent given to the tenant and to solve the storage concerns offered a garden shed to the tenants who declined saying that it would not be big enough to store all their items.

The landlord met with the tenant on 29 August 2025 and no resolution was reached.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 27 August 2025 to remove the illegal structure and another 14-day notice on 21 November 2025 to remove the electrical cord running power to the carport, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

The tenancy agreement states in clause 28. If you want to build structures, such as sheds, sleepouts, or garages on the premises, or make any alterations to it, you must first get our written permission.

The Residential Tenancies Act 1896,RTA, states that the tenant shall not make any alteration or addition of or to the premises, except in accordance with the tenancy agreement or with the prior written consent of the landlord. See section 42 RTA.

The landlord seeks removal of the structure and discontinued use of the extension cord and termination of the tenancy if these breaches are not remedied under section 56 RTA.

When determining if a tenancy should be terminated under section 56 RTA the Tribunal needs to consider if a breach or the tenancy agreement or RTA has occurred .

The next issues are, can the breach be remedied, and if a valid 14 day notice to remedy the breach has been issued and the other party has failed to remedy the default.

Once this is established the Tribunal must consider if the breach is of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The Tribunal often considers if the breach is serious, ongoing and the consequence of the breach on both parties. The likelihood of the tenant repeating the breach and overall fairness is also considered.

The closing in of the carport without written consent is a breach of the tenancy agreement and RTA.

The tenants have been issued correct notices and given opportunities to comply and have refused to. Having heard form Ms Tararo today she believes that she has authority not to comply based on an unsubstantiated verbal consent.

If verbal consent was given, it does not comply with the requirements of the RTA, or the terms of the tenancy agreement and I give this very little weight.

Is the breach serious? I find that it is. This is an unconsented building without certified electrical supply that is used for not only for storage but for meetings and teaching of young people.

Is the breach ongoing? Yes, this is intentional, and the tenant has refused to comply with the landlords’ requests and 14 days notices.

One of the consequences of the breach on the landlord and tenant are ongoing safety risks. The tenant is putting themselves and others in danger and this could also have consequences for the landlord if they ignore a dangerous situation.

I find that it is likely that the tenants will continue this breach based on their continued failure to comply with the landlord requests,14-day notices, RTA and the terms of their tenancy agreement.

In considering the overall fairness of termination, the landlord has given the tenant notice, opportunity and offers of providing another space for safe storage being a sensible option, which the tenant has flatly refused. The tenants show no signs of complying with 14-day notices and I find that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

Despite my finding that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, the landlord has requested that the tenant be given one more opportunity to comply before the tenancy is terminated. The tenant has 21 days from the date of this order, being 5pm, Monday, 2 March 2026 to return the carport to the original condition. If the tenant fails to return the carport to its original condition by that date and discontinue use of extension cord to the area, the tenancy will terminate. I have granted a conditional termination. See section 78(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order is enforceable for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.