What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5080188 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5080188?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5080188?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5080188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11226116-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5080188 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5080188?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5080188?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5080188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11226116-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5080188 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5080188 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

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 [Tenancy address suppressed] immediately, subject to the tenancy of Ben Hardcastle.
Rosanne Ferris and Phillip Pike must pay [The landlord/s] $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The applicant attended the hearing. The respondent did not.
The applicant’s written application included three respondents: a. Rosanne Ferris b. Phillip Pike c. Ben Hardcastle
At the hearing, the applicant withdrew their claim against Ben Hardcastle, leaving only Rosanne Ferris and Phillip Pike.
I am satisfied that Rosanne Ferris and Phillip Pike have been appropriately notified of the hearing and therefore, I proceed to consider the application in their absence.
The applicant seeks a possession order in relation to the premises occupied by Rosanne Ferris and Phillip Pike. Background
The premises in question were owned by the late [the applicant/s]. The owner passed away on 2 January 2020 without a will.
Before the owner passed away, she resided in the property with one of her son’s, Ben Hardcastle, the third respondent initially included in this application.
The Public Trust became the property manager for the owner on 31 October 2017. From this date onwards, Mr Hardcastle paid rent once per fortnight and continued living in the property, including when the owner was moved to a residential care facility and following her death. The rent paid is a nominal amount, sufficient to cover the rates and insurance on the premises.
In their written submissions, the Public Trust acknowledged that the Tribunal was likely to find that Mr Hardcastle was a tenant. I agree. Section 2(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. Residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence. Tenancy in relation to any residential premises means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent. Mr Hardcastle lives in the premises, which are residential and pays [The landlord/s] a nominal amount in rent per fortnight. This sounds like a residential tenancy.
The applicant withdrew their claim against Mr Hardcastle at the hearing when it became apparent that the notice given terminating Mr Hardcastle’s tenancy did not comply with section 51 RTA.
Shortly after the owner passed away on 2 January 2020, Rosanne Ferris and her partner Phillip Pike moved into the premises. Rosanne Ferris is the sister of the owner.
The applicant claims that since Ms Ferris and Mr Pike moved into the property, its condition has deteriorated. The applicant suspects that Ms Ferris and Mr Pike have taken advantage of Mr Hardcastle, who the applicant says is vulnerable and suffers from a suspected learning difficulty. Mr Hardcastle used to reside in a flat at the rear of the property. The applicant claims that Ms Ferris and Mr Pike have taken over this flat and pushed Mr Hardcastle into one of the sheds or carports at the property.
Letters of Administration were granted to the Public Trust on 28 February 2023. On 27 August 2024, a notice dated 22 August 2024 was personally served on Ms Ferris and Mr Pike requiring them to vacate the property by 5pm, Friday 18 October 2024. The applicant claims that they remain in possession of the property. Relevant legal considerations
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to evict squatters, notwithstanding the fact of no tenancy agreement. Section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states: 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 granted possession of the premises to the applicant. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall limit of 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 applicant has filed comprehensive submissions in writing in advance of the hearing. In short, those submissions are that a possession order should be made against Rosanne Ferris and Phillip Pike under section 65 RTA, because they do not have a right to occupy the premises, have been asked to leave and have refused to do so. The applicant submits that they have a right to possession as against Rosanne Ferris and Phillip Pike and therefore, the order should be made in their favour.
The case of Simons and Holland Beckett Trustees no 11 as Trustees for the Newald Trust v McLean [2022] 4316762 sets out the correct test and considerations the Tribunal must take. Applying these factors to the present case, I make the following observations: a. Are the premises residential? Yes, the premise is a residential dwelling house. b. Who has the lawful right to grant a right of occupation? As administrator of the owner’s estate, the applicant 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 that the applicant has granted Ms Ferris and Mr Pike 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 Ms Ferris and Mr Pike are in possession of the premises by way of any legal right. Conclusion
I am satisfied that a possession order must be granted to the applicant as against Rosanne Ferris and Phillip Pike. The possession order is to have immediate effect and is subject to the tenancy of Ben Hardcastle. Suppression and filing fee
[The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim and requested name suppression. Therefore, I must grant them name suppression and reimburse the filing fee. See sections 95A(1) and 102(4)(a) RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5080188 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

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 [Tenancy address suppressed] immediately, subject to the tenancy of Ben Hardcastle.
Rosanne Ferris and Phillip Pike must pay [The landlord/s] $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The applicant attended the hearing. The respondent did not.
The applicant’s written application included three respondents: a. Rosanne Ferris b. Phillip Pike c. Ben Hardcastle
At the hearing, the applicant withdrew their claim against Ben Hardcastle, leaving only Rosanne Ferris and Phillip Pike.
I am satisfied that Rosanne Ferris and Phillip Pike have been appropriately notified of the hearing and therefore, I proceed to consider the application in their absence.
The applicant seeks a possession order in relation to the premises occupied by Rosanne Ferris and Phillip Pike. Background
The premises in question were owned by the late [the applicant/s]. The owner passed away on 2 January 2020 without a will.
Before the owner passed away, she resided in the property with one of her son’s, Ben Hardcastle, the third respondent initially included in this application.
The Public Trust became the property manager for the owner on 31 October 2017. From this date onwards, Mr Hardcastle paid rent once per fortnight and continued living in the property, including when the owner was moved to a residential care facility and following her death. The rent paid is a nominal amount, sufficient to cover the rates and insurance on the premises.
In their written submissions, the Public Trust acknowledged that the Tribunal was likely to find that Mr Hardcastle was a tenant. I agree. Section 2(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. Residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence. Tenancy in relation to any residential premises means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent. Mr Hardcastle lives in the premises, which are residential and pays [The landlord/s] a nominal amount in rent per fortnight. This sounds like a residential tenancy.
The applicant withdrew their claim against Mr Hardcastle at the hearing when it became apparent that the notice given terminating Mr Hardcastle’s tenancy did not comply with section 51 RTA.
Shortly after the owner passed away on 2 January 2020, Rosanne Ferris and her partner Phillip Pike moved into the premises. Rosanne Ferris is the sister of the owner.
The applicant claims that since Ms Ferris and Mr Pike moved into the property, its condition has deteriorated. The applicant suspects that Ms Ferris and Mr Pike have taken advantage of Mr Hardcastle, who the applicant says is vulnerable and suffers from a suspected learning difficulty. Mr Hardcastle used to reside in a flat at the rear of the property. The applicant claims that Ms Ferris and Mr Pike have taken over this flat and pushed Mr Hardcastle into one of the sheds or carports at the property.
Letters of Administration were granted to the Public Trust on 28 February 2023. On 27 August 2024, a notice dated 22 August 2024 was personally served on Ms Ferris and Mr Pike requiring them to vacate the property by 5pm, Friday 18 October 2024. The applicant claims that they remain in possession of the property. Relevant legal considerations
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to evict squatters, notwithstanding the fact of no tenancy agreement. Section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states: 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 granted possession of the premises to the applicant. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall limit of 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 applicant has filed comprehensive submissions in writing in advance of the hearing. In short, those submissions are that a possession order should be made against Rosanne Ferris and Phillip Pike under section 65 RTA, because they do not have a right to occupy the premises, have been asked to leave and have refused to do so. The applicant submits that they have a right to possession as against Rosanne Ferris and Phillip Pike and therefore, the order should be made in their favour.
The case of Simons and Holland Beckett Trustees no 11 as Trustees for the Newald Trust v McLean [2022] 4316762 sets out the correct test and considerations the Tribunal must take. Applying these factors to the present case, I make the following observations: a. Are the premises residential? Yes, the premise is a residential dwelling house. b. Who has the lawful right to grant a right of occupation? As administrator of the owner’s estate, the applicant 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 that the applicant has granted Ms Ferris and Mr Pike 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 Ms Ferris and Mr Pike are in possession of the premises by way of any legal right. Conclusion
I am satisfied that a possession order must be granted to the applicant as against Rosanne Ferris and Phillip Pike. The possession order is to have immediate effect and is subject to the tenancy of Ben Hardcastle. Suppression and filing fee
[The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim and requested name suppression. Therefore, I must grant them name suppression and reimburse the filing fee. See sections 95A(1) and 102(4)(a) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5080188 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5080188 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions