What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4897180 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4897180?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4897180?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4897180?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10441529-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4897180 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4897180?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4897180?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4897180?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10441529-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4897180 — Tenancy dispute

Order

[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. I have used the term ”landlord” and “tenant” in this order for ease of reference only.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises. The landlord says that the tenant is a squatter as that term is defined in s.65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and seeks a possession order pursuant to s.64 RTA.
Section 65 RTA provides that : 65 Eviction of squatters (1) Where on the application of any person entitled to possession of any residential premises, the Tribunal is satisfied that any 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.”
Section 65(3) RTA confirms that the Tribunal has jurisdiction even thought the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.
The landlord provided a copy of the current record of title to the premises. The record provides the following relevant information. • The premises were transferred to James Craig George on 19 October 1995. • A mortgage was vested in [Bank] in 1996. • The mortgage was vested in [Bank Ltd] on 2 November 2006. • The property was transferred to [The landlord/s] following a mortgagee sale on 13 May 2024.
The legal concept of “Indefeasibility of title” applies to the land transfer system in New Zealand. That principal recognises and protects the estate of the registered owner under the land transfer system. It protects, with limited exceptions, the registered proprietor against claims by any competing owner and against claims that do not appear on the register of title.
The landlord is the registered proprietor of the premises.
The tenant says that she is the cousin of James Craig George, the previous owner of the premises. The tenant says that James Craig George died in 2008.
In 2021, the tenant walked past the premises and saw that it was overgrown and needed maintenance. The tenant moved in and caried out work on the premises and has lived there ever since.
The tenant says that the [Bank] mortgage was discharged in 2006 and that any subsequent mortgagee sale to the landlord is fraudulent. No persuasive evidence was provided for that allegation by the tenant.
Having reviewed the evidence and in particular the record of title and taking not account the principal of indefeasibility of title, I find that the tenant is present at the premises without legal right of occupation granted by a person having lawful authority to do so. Possession of the premises is granted to the landlord immediately.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful on this matter and the tenant application for suppression is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. I have used the term ”landlord” and “tenant” in this order for ease of reference only.

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises. The landlord says that the tenant is a squatter as that term is defined in s.65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and seeks a possession order pursuant to s.64 RTA.

Section 65 RTA provides that : 65 Eviction of squatters (1) Where on the application of any person entitled to possession of any residential premises, the Tribunal is satisfied that any 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.”

Section 65(3) RTA confirms that the Tribunal has jurisdiction even thought the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.

The landlord provided a copy of the current record of title to the premises. The record provides the following relevant information. • The premises were transferred to James Craig George on 19 October 1995. • A mortgage was vested in [Bank] in 1996. • The mortgage was vested in [Bank Ltd] on 2 November 2006. • The property was transferred to [The landlord/s] following a mortgagee sale on 13 May 2024.

The legal concept of “Indefeasibility of title” applies to the land transfer system in New Zealand. That principal recognises and protects the estate of the registered owner under the land transfer system. It protects, with limited exceptions, the registered proprietor against claims by any competing owner and against claims that do not appear on the register of title.

The landlord is the registered proprietor of the premises.

The tenant says that she is the cousin of James Craig George, the previous owner of the premises. The tenant says that James Craig George died in 2008.

In 2021, the tenant walked past the premises and saw that it was overgrown and needed maintenance. The tenant moved in and caried out work on the premises and has lived there ever since.

The tenant says that the [Bank] mortgage was discharged in 2006 and that any subsequent mortgagee sale to the landlord is fraudulent. No persuasive evidence was provided for that allegation by the tenant.

Having reviewed the evidence and in particular the record of title and taking not account the principal of indefeasibility of title, I find that the tenant is present at the premises without legal right of occupation granted by a person having lawful authority to do so. Possession of the premises is granted to the landlord immediately.

Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful on this matter and the tenant application for suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4897180 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4897180 — 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