What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5180331 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 5180331?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5180331?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5180331?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11594732-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5180331 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 5180331?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5180331?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5180331?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11594732-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5180331 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Applicant name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] from 8am Monday 24 March 2025.

Reasons

The agent for the owner attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference.
There was no telephone number provided by the occupant. The tenant email address used for service was confirmed as active in previous and recent correspondence between the parties. It was open to the occupant to contact the Tribunal and advise of a contact number once served.
I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises per section 65(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

Should a possession order be made?

The law

Section 65 states: (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 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.
The applicant claims Mr Mankelow is in possession of the premises without any right of occupation granted by any person having lawful authority to do so. If this is the case the Tribunal is required to make a possession order granting possession to the applicant.
It further claims the makeshift dwellings evidenced in photos constitute a residential premises, citing s 2 RTA definitions of a ‘premises’ as including any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land; and ‘residential premises’ as any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful. Discussion
[The landlord/s] administers a portfolio of [The owner’s land] known as [Redacted].
[The owner]’s ownership of [The relevant land] is recorded on the record of title and the landlord submitted there has been no licence to occupy granted.
In early October 2024, [The landlord/s] became aware that the premises was being unlawfully occupied. It identified the primary occupier as Jeremiah Mankelow on 21 October 2024. A trespass notice was served that same day
Upon engagement with Mr Mankelow, he claimed the premises as owned by his grandfather. It appears undisputed that family ownership of a neighbouring property exists. That property is referred to in communication as the “Cottage”.
The landlord, relying on historic satellite imagery, stated there was no sign of any access or buildings at the premises subject to this application, as at April 2022. A track was visible from December 2022, with a building later identified as constructed from April 2024 images.
[The landlord/s] undertook research to investigate the historic ownership claim of Mr Mankelow. The evidence and results were provided to the Tribunal by the applicant. The research concluded there was no evidence to support the claim. I am unaware of any applications to the appropriate court by the occupant regarding any ownership claim of [The premises].
An email was sent by the landlord to Mr Mankelow on 27 November 2024. The email advised the occupant that the served trespass notice of 21 October 2024 stands, giving him until 6 January 2025 to “vacate the land and remove trespassing structures and property”. Decision
I believe I have sufficient evidence from the applicant to establish that: a. [The owner]’s ownership of the premises is confirmed on the record of title. b. The applicant as agent has a right to make this application on behalf of [The owner]. c. The continued possession of the property by Mr Mankelow is without any current right to occupy granted by any lawful authority.
Therefore, as required by s 65(1) RTA, I must make a possession order granting possession to the applicant. This is ordered. The date for return of possession is soon. This recognises the previous notice to leave by 6 January 2025 and the immediacy for possession to return for the meeting of other obligations of the owner. It is expected some flexibility regarding possession may be possible with appropriate engagement and commitment from the occupant. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.

Reasons

The agent for the owner attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference.

There was no telephone number provided by the occupant. The tenant email address used for service was confirmed as active in previous and recent correspondence between the parties. It was open to the occupant to contact the Tribunal and advise of a contact number once served.

I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing.

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises per section 65(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

Should a possession order be made?

The law

Section 65 states: (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 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.

The applicant claims Mr Mankelow is in possession of the premises without any right of occupation granted by any person having lawful authority to do so. If this is the case the Tribunal is required to make a possession order granting possession to the applicant.

It further claims the makeshift dwellings evidenced in photos constitute a residential premises, citing s 2 RTA definitions of a ‘premises’ as including any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land; and ‘residential premises’ as any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful. Discussion

[The landlord/s] administers a portfolio of [The owner’s land] known as [Redacted].

[The owner]’s ownership of [The relevant land] is recorded on the record of title and the landlord submitted there has been no licence to occupy granted.

In early October 2024, [The landlord/s] became aware that the premises was being unlawfully occupied. It identified the primary occupier as Jeremiah Mankelow on 21 October 2024. A trespass notice was served that same day

Upon engagement with Mr Mankelow, he claimed the premises as owned by his grandfather. It appears undisputed that family ownership of a neighbouring property exists. That property is referred to in communication as the “Cottage”.

The landlord, relying on historic satellite imagery, stated there was no sign of any access or buildings at the premises subject to this application, as at April 2022. A track was visible from December 2022, with a building later identified as constructed from April 2024 images.

[The landlord/s] undertook research to investigate the historic ownership claim of Mr Mankelow. The evidence and results were provided to the Tribunal by the applicant. The research concluded there was no evidence to support the claim. I am unaware of any applications to the appropriate court by the occupant regarding any ownership claim of [The premises].

An email was sent by the landlord to Mr Mankelow on 27 November 2024. The email advised the occupant that the served trespass notice of 21 October 2024 stands, giving him until 6 January 2025 to “vacate the land and remove trespassing structures and property”. Decision

I believe I have sufficient evidence from the applicant to establish that: a. [The owner]’s ownership of the premises is confirmed on the record of title. b. The applicant as agent has a right to make this application on behalf of [The owner]. c. The continued possession of the property by Mr Mankelow is without any current right to occupy granted by any lawful authority.

Therefore, as required by s 65(1) RTA, I must make a possession order granting possession to the applicant. This is ordered. The date for return of possession is soon. This recognises the previous notice to leave by 6 January 2025 and the immediacy for possession to return for the meeting of other obligations of the owner. It is expected some flexibility regarding possession may be possible with appropriate engagement and commitment from the occupant. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5180331 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5180331 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a possession order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should a possession order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions