What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5115090 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the [landlord/s]/[tenant/s] names and

How much money was awarded in case 5115090?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5115090?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5115090?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11354287-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5115090 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the [landlord/s]/[tenant/s] names and

How much money was awarded in case 5115090?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5115090?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5115090?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11354287-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5115090 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5115090 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at 11.59 pm on Sunday, 9 February 2025. DescriptionAttorney Filing fee r	$27.00	of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at 11.59 pm on Sunday, 9 February 2025. DescriptionAttorney Filing fee r
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the [landlord/s]/[tenant/s] names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at 11.59 pm on Sunday, 9 February 2025. DescriptionAttorney Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$27.00 Total payable by Occupier to Attorney$27.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via teleconference.
[The landlord/s] is the attorney under an Enduring Power of Attorney in relation to his mother’s property at [Tenancy address suppressed].
[The tenant/s] is the occupier of the property.
[The landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] are brothers. The attorney’s case
[The landlord/s], in his written submissions, says, “At the end of 2023, my mother had a bad fall and was hospitalised. Since that time, mum has been unable to return to [tenancy address suppressed] to live, and mum has dementia and is being cared for at [redacted].”
[The landlord/s] further submitted that he would like to sell the property so he could pay for his mother’s care. [The landlord/s] also gave evidence in the hearing that he consulted with other named persons in the Enduring Power of Attorney in Relation to Property (“EPOA”).
[The landlord/s] further claims that [The tenant/s] has refused to vacate the premises despite being informed of the necessity to do so. [The landlord/s] further alleges that [The tenant/s] has not contributed to any expenses related to the property and has even threatened him and other family members. [The landlord/s] asserts that he has followed legal advice and the police's guidance to initiate the eviction process, as [The tenant/s] refusal to leave has made it difficult for the family to proceed with the sale of the property. The occupier’s case
[The tenant/s] disputes [The landlord/s] claims, arguing that there has been no proper family discussion regarding the sale of the property. He contends that the enduring power of attorney requires [The landlord/s] to consult with all named family members, including himself, before making decisions about the property.
[The tenant/s] claims that he has not been adequately consulted or involved in any discussions about the sale or his eviction. He further asserts that the property is the family home and that he has been living there since 2008. [The tenant/s] also challenges [The landlord/s] assertion that the property needs to be sold to cover their mother's care costs.
[The tenant/s] says the property is the family home, so he has the right to stay and occupy it.
[The tenant/s] accepts that he has not paid anything toward the maintenance of the property, such as rent or rates, because he cannot afford it. The attorney’s section 65 application
[The landlord/s], acting as the attorney of his mother’s property, has made an application to the Tribunal under section 65 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) which provides that the Tribunal must make an order granting possession of the premises to the person entitled to possession of any residential premises, where the Tribunal: “is satisfied that any other person is in possession of the premises is a squatter, 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.”
Section 65 RTA was considered by the High Court in Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell [2019] NZHC 328. The Court held that there are three conditions which must be met before an order can be made: a. The premises must be residential premises. b. The applicant is entitled to possession. c. The other person has a right of occupation granted by a person having lawful authority to do so.
If these three elements are established, then the Tribunal must make a possession order. Burden of proof
[The landlord/s] submitted a copy of the EPOA to support his application that he has the power to handle property affairs.
In my view, the EPOA prima facie entitled [The landlord/s] to possession of his mother’s property. [The landlord/s] has not submitted evidence, such as a certificate of title, that his mother owns the property.
However, [The tenant/s] did not dispute that the property in question is intended for residential purposes. Both parties agreed that the property at [tenancy address suppressed], belongs to their mother, who is currently in care due to her advanced age and dementia.
Accordingly, I am satisfied [The landlord/s] has the authority to apply to evict [The tenant/s].
Once [The landlord/s] has established his legal right to possession of the property, [The tenant/s] must satisfy me that he is in possession of the premises pursuant to a right of occupation granted by the legal owner of the premises.
The standard of proof is balance of probabilities. Application of law
I have ruled that [The landlord/s] has discharged his burden of proof that the property is for residential use, that he is entitled to possession of it, and that he has the authority to grant occupation to another person.
The issue now is whether [The tenant/s] has submitted any form of evidence to support his contention that he has the right to occupation granted by the legal owner or [The landlord/s].
It is insufficient to assert the property is a “family home” because the RTA does not recognise “family home”. Under the Act, the issue is whether the premises is for residential purposes. A “family home” is in the context of relationship property under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.
If [The tenant/s] is dissatisfied with [The landlord/s] decision to evict him because of insufficient consultation, the appropriate course of action is to review [The landlord/s] decision under section 103 of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988. I do not have jurisdiction to review [The landlord/s] decision.
Accordingly, I reject [The tenant/s] submissions that he is entitled to occupy the premises because it is a family home. Conclusion
For the reasons above, I am satisfied [The tenant/s] is in possession of his mother’s property as a squatter.
For the same reasons above, [The landlord/s] has established his legal right to possession of the property under the EPOA.
Accordingly, [The landlord/s] application under section 65 of the Act is granted. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the application I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
Neither [The landlord/s] nor [The tenant/s] sought name suppression.
This case involves a family dispute. I do not consider there is a public interest in publishing this judgment.
Therefore, on my own initiative, I order the suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details under section 96A(4) of the Act.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5115090 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at 11.59 pm on Sunday, 9 February 2025. DescriptionAttorney Filing fee r	$27.00	of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at 11.59 pm on Sunday, 9 February 2025. DescriptionAttorney Filing fee r
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the [landlord/s]/[tenant/s] names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at 11.59 pm on Sunday, 9 February 2025. DescriptionAttorney Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$27.00 Total payable by Occupier to Attorney$27.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via teleconference.
[The landlord/s] is the attorney under an Enduring Power of Attorney in relation to his mother’s property at [Tenancy address suppressed].
[The tenant/s] is the occupier of the property.
[The landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] are brothers. The attorney’s case
[The landlord/s], in his written submissions, says, “At the end of 2023, my mother had a bad fall and was hospitalised. Since that time, mum has been unable to return to [tenancy address suppressed] to live, and mum has dementia and is being cared for at [redacted].”
[The landlord/s] further submitted that he would like to sell the property so he could pay for his mother’s care. [The landlord/s] also gave evidence in the hearing that he consulted with other named persons in the Enduring Power of Attorney in Relation to Property (“EPOA”).
[The landlord/s] further claims that [The tenant/s] has refused to vacate the premises despite being informed of the necessity to do so. [The landlord/s] further alleges that [The tenant/s] has not contributed to any expenses related to the property and has even threatened him and other family members. [The landlord/s] asserts that he has followed legal advice and the police's guidance to initiate the eviction process, as [The tenant/s] refusal to leave has made it difficult for the family to proceed with the sale of the property. The occupier’s case
[The tenant/s] disputes [The landlord/s] claims, arguing that there has been no proper family discussion regarding the sale of the property. He contends that the enduring power of attorney requires [The landlord/s] to consult with all named family members, including himself, before making decisions about the property.
[The tenant/s] claims that he has not been adequately consulted or involved in any discussions about the sale or his eviction. He further asserts that the property is the family home and that he has been living there since 2008. [The tenant/s] also challenges [The landlord/s] assertion that the property needs to be sold to cover their mother's care costs.
[The tenant/s] says the property is the family home, so he has the right to stay and occupy it.
[The tenant/s] accepts that he has not paid anything toward the maintenance of the property, such as rent or rates, because he cannot afford it. The attorney’s section 65 application
[The landlord/s], acting as the attorney of his mother’s property, has made an application to the Tribunal under section 65 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) which provides that the Tribunal must make an order granting possession of the premises to the person entitled to possession of any residential premises, where the Tribunal: “is satisfied that any other person is in possession of the premises is a squatter, 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.”
Section 65 RTA was considered by the High Court in Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell [2019] NZHC 328. The Court held that there are three conditions which must be met before an order can be made: a. The premises must be residential premises. b. The applicant is entitled to possession. c. The other person has a right of occupation granted by a person having lawful authority to do so.
If these three elements are established, then the Tribunal must make a possession order. Burden of proof
[The landlord/s] submitted a copy of the EPOA to support his application that he has the power to handle property affairs.
In my view, the EPOA prima facie entitled [The landlord/s] to possession of his mother’s property. [The landlord/s] has not submitted evidence, such as a certificate of title, that his mother owns the property.
However, [The tenant/s] did not dispute that the property in question is intended for residential purposes. Both parties agreed that the property at [tenancy address suppressed], belongs to their mother, who is currently in care due to her advanced age and dementia.
Accordingly, I am satisfied [The landlord/s] has the authority to apply to evict [The tenant/s].
Once [The landlord/s] has established his legal right to possession of the property, [The tenant/s] must satisfy me that he is in possession of the premises pursuant to a right of occupation granted by the legal owner of the premises.
The standard of proof is balance of probabilities. Application of law
I have ruled that [The landlord/s] has discharged his burden of proof that the property is for residential use, that he is entitled to possession of it, and that he has the authority to grant occupation to another person.
The issue now is whether [The tenant/s] has submitted any form of evidence to support his contention that he has the right to occupation granted by the legal owner or [The landlord/s].
It is insufficient to assert the property is a “family home” because the RTA does not recognise “family home”. Under the Act, the issue is whether the premises is for residential purposes. A “family home” is in the context of relationship property under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.
If [The tenant/s] is dissatisfied with [The landlord/s] decision to evict him because of insufficient consultation, the appropriate course of action is to review [The landlord/s] decision under section 103 of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988. I do not have jurisdiction to review [The landlord/s] decision.
Accordingly, I reject [The tenant/s] submissions that he is entitled to occupy the premises because it is a family home. Conclusion
For the reasons above, I am satisfied [The tenant/s] is in possession of his mother’s property as a squatter.
For the same reasons above, [The landlord/s] has established his legal right to possession of the property under the EPOA.
Accordingly, [The landlord/s] application under section 65 of the Act is granted. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the application I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
Neither [The landlord/s] nor [The tenant/s] sought name suppression.
This case involves a family dispute. I do not consider there is a public interest in publishing this judgment.
Therefore, on my own initiative, I order the suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details under section 96A(4) of the Act.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5115090 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5115090 — 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