What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4689734 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address

How much money was awarded in case 4689734?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4689734?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4689734?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9616766-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4689734 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address

How much money was awarded in case 4689734?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4689734?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4689734?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9616766-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4689734 — Tenancy dispute

Order

[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at 11.59 pm on Tuesday 14 November 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This hearing was done by telephone.
There is a non-association clause which is part of the occupier’s bail conditions. I advised the occupier that she was talking to me during the hearing not the owner, and that she was allowed to take part in the Tribunal hearing, despite her bail conditions. I said I would record this in the order in case there were legal repercussions. The tenant agreed to take part in the hearing.
The owners have applied for possession of the premises. This is an application made pursuant to section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA). Section 65 says – “(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.”
The house in question is residential premises. The owner provided rates information that shows that she is one of two owners. Taken together with the verbal evidence from the parties, I am satisfied she has proved she is the legal owner.
The occupier is living in the house. She has lived there for the past 5 years with the owner’s son and three children. There has never been a tenancy agreement and the occupiers did not pay any rent. None of this was recorded in writing. The son and the occupier have separated. The owner wants her and the children to move out.
Under section 65(1), I have to decide if the occupier has any right of occupation granted to them by any person having the lawful authority to grant that right. The occupier said the owners have told her to move out.
It seems likely to me that the occupier had a license to occupy given by the owner. This law says this license can be revoked at any time. I find that the licence to occupy has been revoked and the occupier is now living at the premises without any right of occupation.
The application for possession is allowed.
The occupier submitted that she could not move out because she was bailed to that address. That is not a matter the Tribunal can take into consideration. The occupier should show this order to the people responsible for changing her bail conditions.
The occupier also submitted that she has made enquiries and it is really hard to find somewhere else to live at the moment. I allow an extra week so the occupier can make arrangements.
The occupier made an application for suppression. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. See section 95A RTA.
I have used my discretion to allow suppression for both parties. This matter arises from a family relationship and there is no public interest in the parties being named.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This hearing was done by telephone.

There is a non-association clause which is part of the occupier’s bail conditions. I advised the occupier that she was talking to me during the hearing not the owner, and that she was allowed to take part in the Tribunal hearing, despite her bail conditions. I said I would record this in the order in case there were legal repercussions. The tenant agreed to take part in the hearing.

The owners have applied for possession of the premises. This is an application made pursuant to section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA). Section 65 says – “(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.”

The house in question is residential premises. The owner provided rates information that shows that she is one of two owners. Taken together with the verbal evidence from the parties, I am satisfied she has proved she is the legal owner.

The occupier is living in the house. She has lived there for the past 5 years with the owner’s son and three children. There has never been a tenancy agreement and the occupiers did not pay any rent. None of this was recorded in writing. The son and the occupier have separated. The owner wants her and the children to move out.

Under section 65(1), I have to decide if the occupier has any right of occupation granted to them by any person having the lawful authority to grant that right. The occupier said the owners have told her to move out.

It seems likely to me that the occupier had a license to occupy given by the owner. This law says this license can be revoked at any time. I find that the licence to occupy has been revoked and the occupier is now living at the premises without any right of occupation.

The application for possession is allowed.

The occupier submitted that she could not move out because she was bailed to that address. That is not a matter the Tribunal can take into consideration. The occupier should show this order to the people responsible for changing her bail conditions.

The occupier also submitted that she has made enquiries and it is really hard to find somewhere else to live at the moment. I allow an extra week so the occupier can make arrangements.

The occupier made an application for suppression. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. See section 95A RTA.

I have used my discretion to allow suppression for both parties. This matter arises from a family relationship and there is no public interest in the parties being named.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4689734 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4689734 — Tenancy dispute

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