What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5174014 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal Orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5174014?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5174014?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5174014?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11563947-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5174014 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal Orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5174014?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5174014?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5174014?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11563947-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5174014 — 14-day notice

Order

The Tribunal Orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for: a. termination of the tenancy for abandonment; b. possession of the premises.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Section 61 RTA allows the Tribunal to make an Order terminating the tenancy if satisfied that the tenant has abandoned the premises and rent is in arrears.
The landlord has provided evidence from its case worker, who appeared today, that on 1 February 2025 she visited the premises to find that the tenant was not there. Her report to the police notes that: “...unauthorised individuals, suspected squatters, have been residing at the property. There has been observed activity of people coming and going with tools (screwdriver and drill) raising concerns that copper or other materials may be at risk of being removed from the premises. There were 3 guys at the house and said they knew the resident but I believe they know she has vacated the property. Also there is a big dog in the house hence why we didn’t enter...”
A report from the Department of Corrections says that: “On 3 February 2025 at 11:00am a home visit was conducted to 6A Deborah Plc, Mangere, the address for Anne Ngaumo and found she was not at the address. On 4 February 2025 at 1:00pm another home visit was conducted to the address 6A Deborah Plc, Mangere, the address for Anne Ngaumo and found she was not at the address. Anne Ngauomo is currently on a sentence of home detention which requires her to be at the address 6A Deborah Plc, Mangere at all times unless approved by a Probation Officer.”
That evidence satisfies me that it is more likely than not that the tenant is not currently living at the premises.
The rent is not in arrears so the grounds for terminating the tenancy under s.61 are not established.
Some tenancy agreements, particularly those creating social housing tenancies, contain a provision requiring that the tenant must remain living at the premises, to ensure that residential premises do not remain vacant when required to meet housing need. The parties’ agreement does not have that provision. The tenant is not in breach of her obligations by not currently residing there.
There is no evidence of the tenant having breached the provisions of s.55(1)(b) or (c) (causing or threatening damage or assault). There is no evidence of the tenant having committed any other significant breach incapable of remedy or of having been given a 14 day notice to remedy which she has not complied with (s.56(1)).
That being so, grounds for terminating the tenancy are not established.

Can a possession Order be made?

Section 65 RTA provides that: “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.”
The available evidence suggests that the persons currently in possession of the premises are there otherwise than under any right of occupation granted by the landlord or by the tenant. The landlord has not granted those persons a right of occupation. The tenant cannot have properly done so as the agreement specifies the maximum number of occupants as 2 (the tenant and Mr Kingi)
The question is whether, for the purposes of s.65, the landlord is a person entitled to possession for the purposes of s.65.
During the hearing I indicated to the landlord’s representatives that I did not believe there were grounds for the Tribunal to make an Order terminating the tenancy but that an Order might be made enabling the landlord to recover possession of the premises from the current occupants.
Following further reflection and research, my conclusion is that the Tribunal cannot make an Order for possession under s.65 RTA. The continuing tenancy means that the landlord is not a person entitled to possession of the premises. That entitlement rests only with the tenant.
Accordingly, the landlord’s application must be dismissed. I apologise for having given the landlord’s representatives a different expectation at the hearing.

Order

The Tribunal Orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for: a. termination of the tenancy for abandonment; b. possession of the premises.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Section 61 RTA allows the Tribunal to make an Order terminating the tenancy if satisfied that the tenant has abandoned the premises and rent is in arrears.
The landlord has provided evidence from its case worker, who appeared today, that on 1 February 2025 she visited the premises to find that the tenant was not there. Her report to the police notes that: “...unauthorised individuals, suspected squatters, have been residing at the property. There has been observed activity of people coming and going with tools (screwdriver and drill) raising concerns that copper or other materials may be at risk of being removed from the premises. There were 3 guys at the house and said they knew the resident but I believe they know she has vacated the property. Also there is a big dog in the house hence why we didn’t enter...”
A report from the Department of Corrections says that: “On 3 February 2025 at 11:00am a home visit was conducted to 6A Deborah Plc, Mangere, the address for Anne Ngaumo and found she was not at the address. On 4 February 2025 at 1:00pm another home visit was conducted to the address 6A Deborah Plc, Mangere, the address for Anne Ngaumo and found she was not at the address. Anne Ngauomo is currently on a sentence of home detention which requires her to be at the address 6A Deborah Plc, Mangere at all times unless approved by a Probation Officer.”
That evidence satisfies me that it is more likely than not that the tenant is not currently living at the premises.
The rent is not in arrears so the grounds for terminating the tenancy under s.61 are not established.
Some tenancy agreements, particularly those creating social housing tenancies, contain a provision requiring that the tenant must remain living at the premises, to ensure that residential premises do not remain vacant when required to meet housing need. The parties’ agreement does not have that provision. The tenant is not in breach of her obligations by not currently residing there.
There is no evidence of the tenant having breached the provisions of s.55(1)(b) or (c) (causing or threatening damage or assault). There is no evidence of the tenant having committed any other significant breach incapable of remedy or of having been given a 14 day notice to remedy which she has not complied with (s.56(1)).
That being so, grounds for terminating the tenancy are not established.

Can a possession Order be made?

Section 65 RTA provides that: “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.”
The available evidence suggests that the persons currently in possession of the premises are there otherwise than under any right of occupation granted by the landlord or by the tenant. The landlord has not granted those persons a right of occupation. The tenant cannot have properly done so as the agreement specifies the maximum number of occupants as 2 (the tenant and Mr Kingi)
The question is whether, for the purposes of s.65, the landlord is a person entitled to possession for the purposes of s.65.
During the hearing I indicated to the landlord’s representatives that I did not believe there were grounds for the Tribunal to make an Order terminating the tenancy but that an Order might be made enabling the landlord to recover possession of the premises from the current occupants.
Following further reflection and research, my conclusion is that the Tribunal cannot make an Order for possession under s.65 RTA. The continuing tenancy means that the landlord is not a person entitled to possession of the premises. That entitlement rests only with the tenant.
Accordingly, the landlord’s application must be dismissed. I apologise for having given the landlord’s representatives a different expectation at the hearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5174014 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5174014 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Can a possession Order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Can a possession Order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions