What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5155794 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5155794?

f the premises at [Tenancy address s…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5155794?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5155794?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11488959-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5155794 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5155794?

f the premises at [Tenancy address s…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5155794?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5155794?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11488959-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5155794 — Boarding House

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5155794. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
f the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at 11:59pm on 6 April 2025. 3. [The respondent/s] is to pay [The applican	$27.00		f the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at 11:59pm on 6 April 2025. 3. [The respondent/s] is to pay [The applican

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at 11:59pm on 6 April 2025.
[The respondent/s] is to pay [The applicant/s] $27.00 immediately for the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background
The tenancy address is owned by the landlord, together with his partner. The tenant is the landlord’s brother.
In 2019 the tenant needed somewhere to live, and the landlord offered his property as a rental property. There was no written tenancy agreement and no bond paid. The verbal agreement between the parties was that the tenant would pay weekly rent to the landlord in exchange for living at the property.
According to the landlord, throughout the last five years the tenant has paid rent “on and off”. Eventually, the inconsistent rent payments have resulted in the landlord needing to sell the property as the incoming rent is insufficient to cover the mortgage.
On 1 November 2024 the landlord, through its lawyer, issued a 90-day notice in accordance with s51(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), as he needed to put the property on the market. The termination notice recorded the final day of the tenancy as 30 January 2025.
The tenant does not dispute these facts, or the requirement for him to leave the property, but advises that he has been unable to find alternative suitable premises.

Is this an excluded arrangement?

The first question to consider is whether the tenant’s occupation of the property was a tenancy pursuant to the RTA.
Section 5(1)(n) of the RTA states that: (1) This Act shall not apply in the following cases: (n) where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenant, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.
The tenant is clearly a family member of the landlord and accordingly, I am satisfied that this occupation falls within the section 5(1)(n) exclusion.
Parties can agree in writing that all the provisions of the RTA shall apply in respect of an excluded tenancy, but no evidence has been provided that demonstrates such an agreement. See section 8 of the RTA. Possession
The second question is whether the Tribunal should make the possession order sought by the landlord.
Section 65 of the RTA provides: 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 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.
The High Court has confirmed that there are three conditions to be met before an order under s65 can be made: 1 a. The premises are residential premises. b. The applicant is entitled to possession. c. The other party is a squatter, trespasser, or is not in possession pursuant to any right of occupation granted by a person having lawful authority to do so.
The three-part test reflects of the wording in the section, and the third limb itself contains three alternatives that may be satisfied.
The High Court has confirmed that once the three-part test is satisfied, it is mandatory for the Tribunal to make the possession order. 2
Dealing with a claim in the order indicated is not necessarily the most useful way of doing so, especially where the third alternative of ‘unauthorised occupant’ is relied on. This is because the Tribunal must determine whether the other party has a lawful right of occupation before it can make a finding whether the applicant is entitled to possession. Therefore, a more useful summary of issues in these circumstances is: a. Are the premises residential? b. Who has the lawful right to grant a right of occupation? c. Has that person granted the occupant a right to occupy the premises? d. If not, is the applicant entitled to possession?

Are the premises residential?

There is no dispute that the premises are residential. 1 Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell [2019] NZHC 328 at [74]. 2 Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell, above at para [24].

Who has the lawful right to grant a right of occupation?

The landlord is the registered proprietor of the property, together with his partner. As owner, he has the lawful right to grant a right of occupation, either by lease or licence, in relation to the premises.

Has the landlord granted the tenant a right of occupation?

Initially, when the tenant was able to move into the property there appears to have been an informal arrangement for the tenant to live at the property and pay rent to occupy the property, or in other words, he paid rent in exchange for the licence to occupy.
When the landlord served the termination notice, this was sufficient to expressly revoke the licence to occupy.
It is therefore the case, that the tenant no longer has a legal right of occupation. Therefore, this element of s65 of the RTA is proved. Based on this finding, the tenant would also meet the legal definition of a ‘squatter’.

Is the landlord entitled to possession?

The landlord is the registered owner of the property. The landlord has revoked the tenant’s right of occupation. I therefore find that the landlord is entitled to possession of the premises.
As all three elements of s65 of the RTA have been established, the Tribunal must make the possession order. Possession date
At the hearing, the landlord advised that he needed possession of the property to sell the house, as no rent is currently being paid. He did not submit a specific timeframe for possession but advised that an increased wait would increase the financial pressure being experienced.
The tenant expressed that he had been trying to find another property but had been unable to find anything suitable and was not sure where he was going to go.
I have set the possession date to allow the tenant some further time to arrange an alternative tenancy. Suppression
I have, on my own initiative, granted suppression to both parties. This decision canvasses personal family matters unrelated to tenancy and any benefit of the decision to the public can be gained without any names or identifying details being published.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 26 February 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5155794. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
f the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at 11:59pm on 6 April 2025. 3. [The respondent/s] is to pay [The applican	$27.00		f the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at 11:59pm on 6 April 2025. 3. [The respondent/s] is to pay [The applican

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at 11:59pm on 6 April 2025.
[The respondent/s] is to pay [The applicant/s] $27.00 immediately for the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background
The tenancy address is owned by the landlord, together with his partner. The tenant is the landlord’s brother.
In 2019 the tenant needed somewhere to live, and the landlord offered his property as a rental property. There was no written tenancy agreement and no bond paid. The verbal agreement between the parties was that the tenant would pay weekly rent to the landlord in exchange for living at the property.
According to the landlord, throughout the last five years the tenant has paid rent “on and off”. Eventually, the inconsistent rent payments have resulted in the landlord needing to sell the property as the incoming rent is insufficient to cover the mortgage.
On 1 November 2024 the landlord, through its lawyer, issued a 90-day notice in accordance with s51(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), as he needed to put the property on the market. The termination notice recorded the final day of the tenancy as 30 January 2025.
The tenant does not dispute these facts, or the requirement for him to leave the property, but advises that he has been unable to find alternative suitable premises.

Is this an excluded arrangement?

The first question to consider is whether the tenant’s occupation of the property was a tenancy pursuant to the RTA.
Section 5(1)(n) of the RTA states that: (1) This Act shall not apply in the following cases: (n) where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenant, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.
The tenant is clearly a family member of the landlord and accordingly, I am satisfied that this occupation falls within the section 5(1)(n) exclusion.
Parties can agree in writing that all the provisions of the RTA shall apply in respect of an excluded tenancy, but no evidence has been provided that demonstrates such an agreement. See section 8 of the RTA. Possession
The second question is whether the Tribunal should make the possession order sought by the landlord.
Section 65 of the RTA provides: 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 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.
The High Court has confirmed that there are three conditions to be met before an order under s65 can be made: 1 a. The premises are residential premises. b. The applicant is entitled to possession. c. The other party is a squatter, trespasser, or is not in possession pursuant to any right of occupation granted by a person having lawful authority to do so.
The three-part test reflects of the wording in the section, and the third limb itself contains three alternatives that may be satisfied.
The High Court has confirmed that once the three-part test is satisfied, it is mandatory for the Tribunal to make the possession order. 2
Dealing with a claim in the order indicated is not necessarily the most useful way of doing so, especially where the third alternative of ‘unauthorised occupant’ is relied on. This is because the Tribunal must determine whether the other party has a lawful right of occupation before it can make a finding whether the applicant is entitled to possession. Therefore, a more useful summary of issues in these circumstances is: a. Are the premises residential? b. Who has the lawful right to grant a right of occupation? c. Has that person granted the occupant a right to occupy the premises? d. If not, is the applicant entitled to possession?

Are the premises residential?

There is no dispute that the premises are residential. 1 Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell [2019] NZHC 328 at [74]. 2 Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell, above at para [24].

Who has the lawful right to grant a right of occupation?

The landlord is the registered proprietor of the property, together with his partner. As owner, he has the lawful right to grant a right of occupation, either by lease or licence, in relation to the premises.

Has the landlord granted the tenant a right of occupation?

Initially, when the tenant was able to move into the property there appears to have been an informal arrangement for the tenant to live at the property and pay rent to occupy the property, or in other words, he paid rent in exchange for the licence to occupy.
When the landlord served the termination notice, this was sufficient to expressly revoke the licence to occupy.
It is therefore the case, that the tenant no longer has a legal right of occupation. Therefore, this element of s65 of the RTA is proved. Based on this finding, the tenant would also meet the legal definition of a ‘squatter’.

Is the landlord entitled to possession?

The landlord is the registered owner of the property. The landlord has revoked the tenant’s right of occupation. I therefore find that the landlord is entitled to possession of the premises.
As all three elements of s65 of the RTA have been established, the Tribunal must make the possession order. Possession date
At the hearing, the landlord advised that he needed possession of the property to sell the house, as no rent is currently being paid. He did not submit a specific timeframe for possession but advised that an increased wait would increase the financial pressure being experienced.
The tenant expressed that he had been trying to find another property but had been unable to find anything suitable and was not sure where he was going to go.
I have set the possession date to allow the tenant some further time to arrange an alternative tenancy. Suppression
I have, on my own initiative, granted suppression to both parties. This decision canvasses personal family matters unrelated to tenancy and any benefit of the decision to the public can be gained without any names or identifying details being published.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 26 February 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5155794 — Boarding House

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5155794 — Boarding House

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is this an excluded arrangement?

Are the premises residential?

Who has the lawful right to grant a right of occupation?

Has the landlord granted the tenant a right of occupation?

Is the landlord entitled to possession?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is this an excluded arrangement?

Are the premises residential?

Who has the lawful right to grant a right of occupation?

Has the landlord granted the tenant a right of occupation?

Is the landlord entitled to possession?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions