What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5145690 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 5145690?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5145690?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5145690?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11914319-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5145690 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 5145690?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5145690?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5145690?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11914319-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 3, 10 Glenora Road, Takanini, Takanini 2112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5145690 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name.
[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at Unit/Flat Flat 3, 10 Glenora Road, Takanini, Takanini 2112 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today, 29 May 2025. The “landlord” attended by videoconference and the “tenant” (Michael) attended in person.
I have amended Michael’s surname in this order as it was incorrect. It is not disputed that Michael is the occupier of the premises. Background
The landlord is the administrator of the real and personal estate of the deceased owner of the premises, [redacted]. The administrator was appointed pursuant to an order of the High Court dated 20 June 2024.
The administrator has applied to the Tribunal for a possession order pursuant to section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
On 6 September 2024 the administrator wrote to Michael, informing him that they had not agreed to his occupation and were not aware of any written tenancy agreement. The administrator’s understanding was that permission for occupation had been given by [redacted] and her husband, who were both deceased.
The administrator gave Michael 14 days’ notice to vacate the premises. Subsequently a trespass notice was served. Michael told the process server that he believed he had a right to reside at the property. He is still living on the premises in a caravan, which he says he has done for 14 years.
Michael and his support person, Ken, say that [redacted]’s gifted the property to Michael and wanted him to have the property when they died. Ken says he is a witness to this.
Michael says that unknown persons claiming to be relatives of the deceased owners came to the premises and took belongings, including papers. Ken questions whether there was a will included in the paperwork. Analysis
The administrator has been appointed pursuant to the Administration Act 1969. The premises are part of the deceased estate and vest in the administrator by operation of law. The administrator has power to sell the property.
I find that the administrator is entitled to possession of the premises. While the deceased owners gave Michael permission to live there, that permission has now been revoked by the administrator.
It was not disputed that the premises are residential premises for the purpose of the Act.
The remaining issue under section 65 is whether the tenant has a right of occupation, granted by someone with lawful authority to do so. The administrator has not granted a right of occupation. There is no tenancy agreement. Michael said he had been a tenant prior to [redacted]’s death and was paying $80.00 per week. No evidence was produced to establish that he was ever granted a tenancy or paid any rent.
Michael produced an undated handwritten statement from “M C Thompson” stating that when they passed away the owners wanted to gift the premises to Michael, who was like family to them. The statement is signed but has not been sworn under oath or declaration. The maker of the statement was not called to give evidence.
Michael may have a claim against the estate in respect of the premises, for example, if he can establish a gift mortis causa (a gift made in contemplation of death) but the Tribunal cannot adjourn its proceedings while Michael establishes his rights in a different forum (Sergeant v Nigro [2019] NZHC 328).
The evidence produced does not establish a current right of occupation. I am satisfied that the administrator is entitled to possession of the premises and that a possession order must be made. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
I did not understand the administrator to be claiming costs. If the filing fee is in fact claimed, an amended order can be provided.
The administrator is a public body. Although it is entitled to suppression pursuant to section 95A of the Act, there may be some public interest in its activities. On the other hand, this matter relates to the personal affairs of deceased persons. On balance, I consider that these privacy issues outweigh the public interest and grant suppression as requested.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name.
[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at Unit/Flat Flat 3, 10 Glenora Road, Takanini, Takanini 2112 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today, 29 May 2025. The “landlord” attended by videoconference and the “tenant” (Michael) attended in person.
I have amended Michael’s surname in this order as it was incorrect. It is not disputed that Michael is the occupier of the premises. Background
The landlord is the administrator of the real and personal estate of the deceased owner of the premises, [redacted]. The administrator was appointed pursuant to an order of the High Court dated 20 June 2024.
The administrator has applied to the Tribunal for a possession order pursuant to section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
On 6 September 2024 the administrator wrote to Michael, informing him that they had not agreed to his occupation and were not aware of any written tenancy agreement. The administrator’s understanding was that permission for occupation had been given by [redacted] and her husband, who were both deceased.
The administrator gave Michael 14 days’ notice to vacate the premises. Subsequently a trespass notice was served. Michael told the process server that he believed he had a right to reside at the property. He is still living on the premises in a caravan, which he says he has done for 14 years.
Michael and his support person, Ken, say that [redacted]’s gifted the property to Michael and wanted him to have the property when they died. Ken says he is a witness to this.
Michael says that unknown persons claiming to be relatives of the deceased owners came to the premises and took belongings, including papers. Ken questions whether there was a will included in the paperwork. Analysis
The administrator has been appointed pursuant to the Administration Act 1969. The premises are part of the deceased estate and vest in the administrator by operation of law. The administrator has power to sell the property.
I find that the administrator is entitled to possession of the premises. While the deceased owners gave Michael permission to live there, that permission has now been revoked by the administrator.
It was not disputed that the premises are residential premises for the purpose of the Act.
The remaining issue under section 65 is whether the tenant has a right of occupation, granted by someone with lawful authority to do so. The administrator has not granted a right of occupation. There is no tenancy agreement. Michael said he had been a tenant prior to [redacted]’s death and was paying $80.00 per week. No evidence was produced to establish that he was ever granted a tenancy or paid any rent.
Michael produced an undated handwritten statement from “M C Thompson” stating that when they passed away the owners wanted to gift the premises to Michael, who was like family to them. The statement is signed but has not been sworn under oath or declaration. The maker of the statement was not called to give evidence.
Michael may have a claim against the estate in respect of the premises, for example, if he can establish a gift mortis causa (a gift made in contemplation of death) but the Tribunal cannot adjourn its proceedings while Michael establishes his rights in a different forum (Sergeant v Nigro [2019] NZHC 328).
The evidence produced does not establish a current right of occupation. I am satisfied that the administrator is entitled to possession of the premises and that a possession order must be made. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
I did not understand the administrator to be claiming costs. If the filing fee is in fact claimed, an amended order can be provided.
The administrator is a public body. Although it is entitled to suppression pursuant to section 95A of the Act, there may be some public interest in its activities. On the other hand, this matter relates to the personal affairs of deceased persons. On balance, I consider that these privacy issues outweigh the public interest and grant suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5145690 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Flat 3, 10 Glenora Road, Takanini, Takanini 2112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5145690 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Flat 3, 10 Glenora Road, Takanini, Takanini 2112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions