What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4932793 about?

The tribunal order states: The tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4932793?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4932793?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4932793?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10798855-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4932793 about?

The tribunal order states: The tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4932793?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4932793?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4932793?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10798855-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4932793 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The respondent/s] is joined as a respondent to the claim.
The application is dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 4 September 2024.
In June 2024, [The tenant/s] (the tenant) entered a ‘Grazing and Occupation Lease’ with (the owner/landlord) for the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] but she has not been able to move in because the previous tenant ([redacted]) refuses to vacate. [The tenant/s] says she has since been trespassed from the premises by [The previous tenant]. [The tenant/s] has now applied to the Tenancy Tribunal for a possession order to remove [The previous tenant], believing him to be a squatter.
[The tenant/s] said her partner runs a business buying and selling cars and [the previous tenant] runs a rust repair and panel beating business from the premises. She said [the previous tenant] mentioned that [The landlord/s] was wanting to get rid of the premises, but he had been unable to purchase it. He suggested that if she could finance the purchase, they could share the premises. But she was unable to get the money for the purchase so she approached [The landlord/s] to lease the premises so she could move her partner’s business into the premises.
[The landlord/s] indicated that there appeared to be a bit of a mix up. He confirmed that he had signed a lease agreement with [The tenant/s]. However, he was not aware of the eviction of [the previous tenant]. He understood there had been an agreement for [The tenant/s] to finance [the previous tenant] for the purchase of the premises and in the meantime that they would share the property so [the previous tenant] could continue his business at the premises and [The tenant/s] could live in her motorhome on the property. He considered this sounded fair and correct and signed the lease agreement. However, what then seemed to subsequently eventuate was that [The tenant/s] wanted to take sole control and evict [the previous tenant] from the property. He confirmed the premises was not a residential premises as far as Council was concerned.
[The previous tenant] disputed [The tenant/s] version of events but agreed with [The landlord/s] understanding of the circumstances. He believes he remains a tenant at the premises and felt undermined and betrayed by [The tenant/s] actions to try and evict him. He confirmed he ran his business from the premises, and it was his intention to continue to run his business from the premises and eventually purchase the premises. He had no intention to vacate the premises and [The tenant/s] was aware of this. He noted, contrary to [The tenant/s] view, that he does reside at the premises and says it is self-contained (along with the workshop there is a shower, toilet and kitchen).
Section 65(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that the Tenancy Tribunal can issue a possession order in cases where a person is occupying residential premises unlawfully as a squatter or trespasser. If the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is entitled to possession and that the person occupying the property has no legal right to remain there, the Tribunal can grant possession to the applicant.
After carefully considering the submissions and evidence from the parties, I make the following key findings.
The RTA primarily governs disputes between landlords and tenants and sets out their rights and responsibilities in relation to the rental property. Disputes between tenants fall outside the scope of the RTA and may be handled through the Disputes Tribunal depending on the nature of the dispute.
I find the premises are not "residential premises" under the RTA. This means the property does not fall within the scope of the Act, and therefore, the Tenancy Tribunal does not have the legal authority or jurisdiction to hear the claim.
Even if I were to accept that a dispute existed between a landlord and tenant or a sub-landlord and sub-tenant, I find that the premises were primarily used for commercial purposes with any residential use being secondary or incidental. Section 5(1)(a) RTA excludes commercial premises from the Tribunal's jurisdiction. As the property in question is primarily used for commercial purposes, the Act does not apply, and the Tribunal cannot intervene.
In conclusion, because the premises are not classified as residential and are instead used primarily for commercial purposes, the Tenancy Tribunal lacks the authority to hear the case or issue a possession order. The applicant would need to pursue their claim through a different legal avenue that deals with disputes of a commercial nature. Suppression
Given that the parties were not clearly aware of the issues as to jurisdiction, it is not proportionate that their names be published. Accordingly, pursuant to section 95A of the RTA, I direct that the parties’ details be suppressed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 4 September 2024.

In June 2024, [The tenant/s] (the tenant) entered a ‘Grazing and Occupation Lease’ with (the owner/landlord) for the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] but she has not been able to move in because the previous tenant ([redacted]) refuses to vacate. [The tenant/s] says she has since been trespassed from the premises by [The previous tenant]. [The tenant/s] has now applied to the Tenancy Tribunal for a possession order to remove [The previous tenant], believing him to be a squatter.

[The tenant/s] said her partner runs a business buying and selling cars and [the previous tenant] runs a rust repair and panel beating business from the premises. She said [the previous tenant] mentioned that [The landlord/s] was wanting to get rid of the premises, but he had been unable to purchase it. He suggested that if she could finance the purchase, they could share the premises. But she was unable to get the money for the purchase so she approached [The landlord/s] to lease the premises so she could move her partner’s business into the premises.

[The landlord/s] indicated that there appeared to be a bit of a mix up. He confirmed that he had signed a lease agreement with [The tenant/s]. However, he was not aware of the eviction of [the previous tenant]. He understood there had been an agreement for [The tenant/s] to finance [the previous tenant] for the purchase of the premises and in the meantime that they would share the property so [the previous tenant] could continue his business at the premises and [The tenant/s] could live in her motorhome on the property. He considered this sounded fair and correct and signed the lease agreement. However, what then seemed to subsequently eventuate was that [The tenant/s] wanted to take sole control and evict [the previous tenant] from the property. He confirmed the premises was not a residential premises as far as Council was concerned.

[The previous tenant] disputed [The tenant/s] version of events but agreed with [The landlord/s] understanding of the circumstances. He believes he remains a tenant at the premises and felt undermined and betrayed by [The tenant/s] actions to try and evict him. He confirmed he ran his business from the premises, and it was his intention to continue to run his business from the premises and eventually purchase the premises. He had no intention to vacate the premises and [The tenant/s] was aware of this. He noted, contrary to [The tenant/s] view, that he does reside at the premises and says it is self-contained (along with the workshop there is a shower, toilet and kitchen).

Section 65(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that the Tenancy Tribunal can issue a possession order in cases where a person is occupying residential premises unlawfully as a squatter or trespasser. If the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is entitled to possession and that the person occupying the property has no legal right to remain there, the Tribunal can grant possession to the applicant.

After carefully considering the submissions and evidence from the parties, I make the following key findings.

The RTA primarily governs disputes between landlords and tenants and sets out their rights and responsibilities in relation to the rental property. Disputes between tenants fall outside the scope of the RTA and may be handled through the Disputes Tribunal depending on the nature of the dispute.

I find the premises are not "residential premises" under the RTA. This means the property does not fall within the scope of the Act, and therefore, the Tenancy Tribunal does not have the legal authority or jurisdiction to hear the claim.

Even if I were to accept that a dispute existed between a landlord and tenant or a sub-landlord and sub-tenant, I find that the premises were primarily used for commercial purposes with any residential use being secondary or incidental. Section 5(1)(a) RTA excludes commercial premises from the Tribunal's jurisdiction. As the property in question is primarily used for commercial purposes, the Act does not apply, and the Tribunal cannot intervene.

In conclusion, because the premises are not classified as residential and are instead used primarily for commercial purposes, the Tenancy Tribunal lacks the authority to hear the case or issue a possession order. The applicant would need to pursue their claim through a different legal avenue that deals with disputes of a commercial nature. Suppression

Given that the parties were not clearly aware of the issues as to jurisdiction, it is not proportionate that their names be published. Accordingly, pursuant to section 95A of the RTA, I direct that the parties’ details be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4932793 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4932793 — 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