What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4527151 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4527151?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4527151?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4527151?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9609052-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4527151 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4527151?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4527151?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4527151?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9609052-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 3, 560 Manukau Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4527151 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
[The applicant/s] are granted possession of the premises at Unit/Flat Flat 3, 560 Manukau Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023 immediately.

Reasons

This hearing was conducted remotely. [The applicant’s representative] attended the hearing as agent for the Applicant. There were two attempts to contact [the respondent/s] on the number provided; both went to voicemail.
I am satisfied that she had notice of the time and date of the hearing; therefore, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The Applicant has applied for possession of the premises pursuant to section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”), which reads as follows. (1) Where, on the application of any person entitled to possession of any residential premises, the Tribunal is satisfied that any other person is in possession of the premises as a squatter or trespasser, or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted to that person by any person having lawful authority to grant that right to that other person, the Tribunal shall make a possession order granting possession of the premises to the applicant. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall limit or affect the provisions of the Trespass Act 1980, or any other remedy that may be available to the person lawfully entitled to possession of the premises. (3) To avoid doubt, the Tribunal has jurisdiction under this section even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.
In this case, the premises in question are owned by the [Trustees of the Family Trust]. I have sighted evidence by way of the property rates notice addressed to the legal owners of the property that confirms this.
[The applicant’s representative], who is one of the Trustees and also manages the property, says that the Respondent was granted a licence to occupy the premises in March 2022. I understand she is a family member of the three [family] trustees.
This was a verbal agreement only, and the Respondent has never paid rent, nor been expected to pay rent, for her occupation of the premises.
On 16 January 2023, the Respondent was served with a notice to terminate her occupation of the premises. The notice required her to vacate the premises by 1 March 2023, a period of 44 days after the notice was served.
The Respondent did not vacate the premises by 1 March 2023. At the hearing, [The applicant’s representative] said that as of last night she was still in occupation of the premises.
There is no evidence before me to suggest that this is a residential tenancy or is subject to a tenancy agreement. The Respondent has never paid rent nor given any valuable consideration, which is an essential part of any contract. I find that there is no residential tenancy in place in this case.
Although this means that the majority of the Act does not apply to this situation, section 65(3) of the Act expressly provides that I have jurisdiction to determine this application.
A licence to occupy grants the licensee permission to occupy the land/premises. Unlike a lease, a licence to occupy is subject to the whim of the licensor. This means they are revocable at will.
In this case, the licensor (the Trustees) has revoked the licence to occupy. The Respondent therefore no longer has any legal right to occupy the property.
Section 65(1) requires me to be satisfied of the following three factors: a. That the premises are residential premises. b. That the Applicant for possession is entitled to possession of those premises. c. That another person or persons are in possession as squatters, trespassers or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted by a person having lawful authority to do so.
Having considered the evidence before me, I find that: a. The property clearly meets the definition of “residential premises” in the Act. b. The Applicants are the legal owners of the property and are entitled to be in possession of it. c. The Respondent has no right of occupation granted to her by any person having such authority and is therefore a squatter.
Having made those findings, the section is clear that the granting of a possession order in favour of the Applicant is mandatory.
I therefore make a possession order in favour of the Applicant. J R Smith 12 April 2023

Reasons

This hearing was conducted remotely. [The applicant’s representative] attended the hearing as agent for the Applicant. There were two attempts to contact [the respondent/s] on the number provided; both went to voicemail.

I am satisfied that she had notice of the time and date of the hearing; therefore, the hearing proceeded in her absence.

The Applicant has applied for possession of the premises pursuant to section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”), which reads as follows. (1) Where, on the application of any person entitled to possession of any residential premises, the Tribunal is satisfied that any other person is in possession of the premises as a squatter or trespasser, or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted to that person by any person having lawful authority to grant that right to that other person, the Tribunal shall make a possession order granting possession of the premises to the applicant. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall limit or affect the provisions of the Trespass Act 1980, or any other remedy that may be available to the person lawfully entitled to possession of the premises. (3) To avoid doubt, the Tribunal has jurisdiction under this section even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.

In this case, the premises in question are owned by the [Trustees of the Family Trust]. I have sighted evidence by way of the property rates notice addressed to the legal owners of the property that confirms this.

[The applicant’s representative], who is one of the Trustees and also manages the property, says that the Respondent was granted a licence to occupy the premises in March 2022. I understand she is a family member of the three [family] trustees.

This was a verbal agreement only, and the Respondent has never paid rent, nor been expected to pay rent, for her occupation of the premises.

On 16 January 2023, the Respondent was served with a notice to terminate her occupation of the premises. The notice required her to vacate the premises by 1 March 2023, a period of 44 days after the notice was served.

The Respondent did not vacate the premises by 1 March 2023. At the hearing, [The applicant’s representative] said that as of last night she was still in occupation of the premises.

There is no evidence before me to suggest that this is a residential tenancy or is subject to a tenancy agreement. The Respondent has never paid rent nor given any valuable consideration, which is an essential part of any contract. I find that there is no residential tenancy in place in this case.

Although this means that the majority of the Act does not apply to this situation, section 65(3) of the Act expressly provides that I have jurisdiction to determine this application.

A licence to occupy grants the licensee permission to occupy the land/premises. Unlike a lease, a licence to occupy is subject to the whim of the licensor. This means they are revocable at will.

In this case, the licensor (the Trustees) has revoked the licence to occupy. The Respondent therefore no longer has any legal right to occupy the property.

Section 65(1) requires me to be satisfied of the following three factors: a. That the premises are residential premises. b. That the Applicant for possession is entitled to possession of those premises. c. That another person or persons are in possession as squatters, trespassers or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted by a person having lawful authority to do so.

Having considered the evidence before me, I find that: a. The property clearly meets the definition of “residential premises” in the Act. b. The Applicants are the legal owners of the property and are entitled to be in possession of it. c. The Respondent has no right of occupation granted to her by any person having such authority and is therefore a squatter.

Having made those findings, the section is clear that the granting of a possession order in favour of the Applicant is mandatory.

I therefore make a possession order in favour of the Applicant. J R Smith 12 April 2023

Tenancy Tribunal case 4527151 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 3, 560 Manukau Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4527151 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 3, 560 Manukau Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions