Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 4618369 — Tenancy dispute at 9 Welles Street, Ranfurly, Ranfurly 9332
Decided 5 Oct 2023 · Published 5 Oct 2023 · Application 4618369
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
Ranfurly
Tribunal region
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
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
- [The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at 9 Welles Street, Ranfurly, Ranfurly 9332 immediately.
Reasons
- This application was scheduled to be heard by teleconference. [The landlord’s representative]s represented [The landlord/s], Bryce Jeffs attended and I was unable to get through to Amber Stringer. The hearing proceeded in her absence.
- I note that yesterday Ms Stringer applied for an adjournment because she got the date wrong and was unavailable at today’s hearing time. I declined the application for an adjournment largely on the grounds that two previous adjournment orders dated 7 August 2023 and 30 August 2023 stated that no further adjournment orders would be made. I also noted that Mr Jeffs would still be available to attend the hearing.
- As another preliminary matter I have changed the applicant’s name to [The landlord/s] because that company is the owner of the premises [The landlord’s representative] attended as a director of that company.
- The landlord has applied for possession of the premises, whether that be by terminating the tenancy for non-payment of rent or by evicting the occupants because they are squatters.
- The first issue to be determined is whether a tenancy agreement is in place.
- It was accepted at today’s hearing that there was no written tenancy agreement. However s13C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides no tenancy agreement shall be unenforceable on the grounds that it is not in writing.
- This means that if it can be shown that there is a shared understanding of the terms of an agreement, then that agreement can be enforceable between the parties.
- At today’s hearing Mr Jeffs stated that it was Ms Stringer who came to an agreement [The landlord’s representative]’s relative as to the conditions on which they could stay at the premises. He also said that from time to time he did work for [The landlord’s representative]’s relative who either took money from what was owed him to pay rent, or did not pay him in lieu of rent.
- [The landlord’s representative] has Power of Attorney to deal [The landlord’s representative]’s relative affairs and given that [The landlord’s representative] is unable to attend today’s hearing I can only look to surrounding evidence which would indicate that a tenancy agreement is in place.
- There is nothing that I can see that indicates that there was a shared understanding of any terms of a possible tenancy agreement. There are no regular rent payments. In fact since the tenancy purportedly started in November 2021 there have only been 4 payments of ‘rent’. On 7 November 2022 $250.00 was paid, on 18 November 2022 $350.00 was paid, on 25 November 2022 another $350.00 was paid and on 2 December 2022 a further $250.00 was paid.
- Given the absence of such evidence I conclude that there was no tenancy agreement in place. It appears that all the dealings between the parties were so loose and so fluid that it is impossible to clearly determine the intentions of both parties.
- Given that I have determined that there was no tenancy agreement in place I now turn my attention to the nature of the relationship between the parties.
- I have no doubt that the occupants were given permission to reside at the premises. In other words, they were given a licence to occupy.
- In the District Court case of James Alan Wallath v Alan John Wallath [2021] NZDC 14323, the court confirmed that unless rent is paid or there is valuable consideration, a licence to occupy exists. If that is the case the licence can be revoked at the whim of the grantor of that licence.
- I accept that Mr Jeffs and Ms Stringer had a licence to occupy the premises. However that means that [The landlord/s] has the power to revoke that licence and that is what they have unequivocally done.
- Even if I were to accept that it was [The landlord’s representative]’s relative who gave the occupants a licence to occupy, given that I accept that [The landlord’s representative] is his Power of Attorney, [The landlord’s representative] has the power to revoke that licence. Which again, he has unequivocally done.
- Section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that 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 a 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.
- Having found that the applicant has withdrawn the licence to occupy I am therefore granting possession of the premises to the applicant pursuant to s65. C ter Haar 28 September 2023