What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5006469 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5006469?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5006469?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5006469?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10892220-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5006469 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5006469?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5006469?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5006469?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10892220-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5006469 — Tenancy dispute

Order

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

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by [The landlord/s], seeking a possession order in relation to premises occupied by Joseph Barry Jeffers.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing today. I am satisfied that Mr Jeffers has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the application in his absence.

BACKGROUND

The premises in question were owned by the late [owner]. [The owner] passed away in February 2023. A copy of [The owner]’s will has been provided, of which the three beneficiaries are named, and those are [The owner]’s three children.
Probate of the will was granted to [The landlord/s] as executor and trustee.
At some stage, Joseph Jeffers, [The owner]’s son, entered and took possession of the premises.
[The landlord/s] elected to put the premises on the market for sale, and despite a range of requests and notices, Mr Jeffer’s has refused to leave the premises, necessitating this application for a possession order.
The Tribunal scheduled a hearing in the [Event location suppressed]. A representative from [The landlord/s] appeared, but there was no appearance by Mr Jeffers.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to evict squatters, notwithstanding the fact of no tenancy agreement. Section 65 of the RTA confirms: 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 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.

ANALYSIS

[The landlord/s] has filed comprehensive submissions in writing in advance of the hearing. In short, those submissions are to the extent that a possession order should be granted under section 65, because Mr Jeffers does not have a right to occupy the premises, he has been asked to leave and has declined to do so. [The landlord/s] submits that they do have a right to possession, therefore the order should be made in their favour.
[The landlord/s] referred in their written submission to the test set out by the Tribunal in Simons and Holland Beckett Trustees no 11 as Trustees for the Newald Trust v McLean [2022] 4316762, which I agree sets out the correct considerations the Tribunal must take. Those, with my analysis of each consideration are as follows: a. Are the premises residential premises?
Yes, the premise is a residential dwelling house. b. Who has the lawful right to grant a right of occupation?
As executor of [The owner]’s estate, [The landlord/s] has a right to grant occupation of the premises. c. Has that person granted the occupant a right to occupy the premises?
No. I have seen no evidence of [The landlord/s] granted Mr Jeffers a right to occupy the premises. d. If not, is the occupant entitled to possession of the premises?
I have seen no evidence that suggests Mr Jeffers is in possession of the premises by way of any legal right. While I recognise that Mr Jeffers is a beneficiary of his late father’s will, that does not translate in a right to occupy the premises as he has done.

CONCLUSION

The end result is that the Tribunal is satisfied that a possession order must be granted to [The landlord/s], and that is to have immediate effect.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case [The landlord/s] has been wholly successful, and has requested name suppression, so suppression is ordered for the applicant only.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by [The landlord/s], seeking a possession order in relation to premises occupied by Joseph Barry Jeffers.

Only the landlord appeared at the hearing today. I am satisfied that Mr Jeffers has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the application in his absence.

BACKGROUND

The premises in question were owned by the late [owner]. [The owner] passed away in February 2023. A copy of [The owner]’s will has been provided, of which the three beneficiaries are named, and those are [The owner]’s three children.

Probate of the will was granted to [The landlord/s] as executor and trustee.

At some stage, Joseph Jeffers, [The owner]’s son, entered and took possession of the premises.

[The landlord/s] elected to put the premises on the market for sale, and despite a range of requests and notices, Mr Jeffer’s has refused to leave the premises, necessitating this application for a possession order.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing in the [Event location suppressed]. A representative from [The landlord/s] appeared, but there was no appearance by Mr Jeffers.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to evict squatters, notwithstanding the fact of no tenancy agreement. Section 65 of the RTA confirms: 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 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.

ANALYSIS

[The landlord/s] has filed comprehensive submissions in writing in advance of the hearing. In short, those submissions are to the extent that a possession order should be granted under section 65, because Mr Jeffers does not have a right to occupy the premises, he has been asked to leave and has declined to do so. [The landlord/s] submits that they do have a right to possession, therefore the order should be made in their favour.

[The landlord/s] referred in their written submission to the test set out by the Tribunal in Simons and Holland Beckett Trustees no 11 as Trustees for the Newald Trust v McLean [2022] 4316762, which I agree sets out the correct considerations the Tribunal must take. Those, with my analysis of each consideration are as follows: a. Are the premises residential premises?

Yes, the premise is a residential dwelling house. b. Who has the lawful right to grant a right of occupation?

As executor of [The owner]’s estate, [The landlord/s] has a right to grant occupation of the premises. c. Has that person granted the occupant a right to occupy the premises?

No. I have seen no evidence of [The landlord/s] granted Mr Jeffers a right to occupy the premises. d. If not, is the occupant entitled to possession of the premises?

I have seen no evidence that suggests Mr Jeffers is in possession of the premises by way of any legal right. While I recognise that Mr Jeffers is a beneficiary of his late father’s will, that does not translate in a right to occupy the premises as he has done.

CONCLUSION

The end result is that the Tribunal is satisfied that a possession order must be granted to [The landlord/s], and that is to have immediate effect.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case [The landlord/s] has been wholly successful, and has requested name suppression, so suppression is ordered for the applicant only.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5006469 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5006469 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions