What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5302159 about?

The tribunal order states: Quotable Value Limited T/A Darroch Property Services As Agent For The NZ

How much money was awarded in case 5302159?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5302159?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5302159?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12280325-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5302159 about?

The tribunal order states: Quotable Value Limited T/A Darroch Property Services As Agent For The NZ

How much money was awarded in case 5302159?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5302159?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5302159?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12280325-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17 Borrows Road, Wellsford, RD 4, Wellsford 0974 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5302159 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Quotable Value Limited T/A Darroch Property Services As Agent For The NZ Transport Agency is granted possession of the premises at 17 Borrows Road, Wellsford, RD 4, Wellsford 0974 at 4pm today, Monday 18 August 2025.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Ms Zheng. The Tribunal called the tenant on the cell phone number provided for her in the application but the calls diverted to voicemail. I am satisfied that the tenant received notice of the hearing and did not attend.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises under section 65 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Under section 65(1) RTA 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.
Section 65(3) clarifies that the Tribunal has jurisdiction under section 65 even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement. Facts
In this case, Ms MacGillivray has been a long-term tenant of the premises since 21 August 2018. On various occasions she has given notice to terminate the tenancy but has then cancelled the notice prior to moving out and the landlord has allowed her to stay on.
On 26 February 2025, Ms MacGillivray gave notice to end the tenancy on 19 March 2025. On 27 March, Ms Zheng and a colleague visited the property to conduct a final inspection. Ms MacGilvray was still at the premises and had not removed all her belongings. However, she advised that she would be completely moved out later that day. She also advised Ms Zheng that she had lost the keys to the premises. Ms Zheng told her not to worry about the keys and to just close the door when she left. This is because the landlord did not intend to relet the premises and the premises would simply be boarded up. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) owns the premises and Ms Zheng says that they anticipate it will be required for roading projects within the next 12 months or so.
Some weeks later, when conducting an inspection at a neighbouring tenancy, the neighbours advised Ms Zheng that they believed Ms MacGillvray had moved back into the premises. Ms Zheng visited the premises on 22 May, and discovered that Ms MacGilvray had moved back and her belongings were there. Ms MacGilvray later confirmed that she had never removed all her belongings from the premises; that the property she had moved to was too small; and that she had returned to the premises on 3 May.
On 22 May, the landlord immediately advised Ms MacGilvray (and confirmed by email the same day) that the tenancy had terminated on 19 March as per the termination notice served by her on the landlord and they considered that she was trespassing at the property. They gave her 7 days to vacate the property and advised her that the premises would be boarded up and the access gates locked on 29 May.
Contractors sent to board up the property on 29 May reported that Ms MacGilvray was still there.
On 3 June, Ms Zheng once again visited the property and confirmed that Ms MacGilvray was still in occupation. She has refused to move. Findings
I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord is entitled to possession of the premises which are identified in the portfolio of properties being managed by the landlord in the Property Management Services Agreement between the landlord and NZTA. I am also satisfied that Ms MacGilvray terminated her tenancy by notice effective 19 March 2025. Ms MacGilvray returned to the property on or about 3 May 2025 but she had no legal right to occupy the property after the termination date on 19 March. On 22 May, the landlord gave her until 29 May to leave the property but she has failed to do so. She had no legal right to occupy the premises after 29 May 2025.
In summary, Ms MacGilvray has no legal right of occupation at the premises and is currently in possession of the premises as a trespasser and/or a squatter. The grounds for an order under s65 RTA have been met and the landlord is granted immediate possession of the premises.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Ms Zheng. The Tribunal called the tenant on the cell phone number provided for her in the application but the calls diverted to voicemail. I am satisfied that the tenant received notice of the hearing and did not attend.

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises under section 65 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

Under section 65(1) RTA 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.

Section 65(3) clarifies that the Tribunal has jurisdiction under section 65 even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement. Facts

In this case, Ms MacGillivray has been a long-term tenant of the premises since 21 August 2018. On various occasions she has given notice to terminate the tenancy but has then cancelled the notice prior to moving out and the landlord has allowed her to stay on.

On 26 February 2025, Ms MacGillivray gave notice to end the tenancy on 19 March 2025. On 27 March, Ms Zheng and a colleague visited the property to conduct a final inspection. Ms MacGilvray was still at the premises and had not removed all her belongings. However, she advised that she would be completely moved out later that day. She also advised Ms Zheng that she had lost the keys to the premises. Ms Zheng told her not to worry about the keys and to just close the door when she left. This is because the landlord did not intend to relet the premises and the premises would simply be boarded up. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) owns the premises and Ms Zheng says that they anticipate it will be required for roading projects within the next 12 months or so.

Some weeks later, when conducting an inspection at a neighbouring tenancy, the neighbours advised Ms Zheng that they believed Ms MacGillvray had moved back into the premises. Ms Zheng visited the premises on 22 May, and discovered that Ms MacGilvray had moved back and her belongings were there. Ms MacGilvray later confirmed that she had never removed all her belongings from the premises; that the property she had moved to was too small; and that she had returned to the premises on 3 May.

On 22 May, the landlord immediately advised Ms MacGilvray (and confirmed by email the same day) that the tenancy had terminated on 19 March as per the termination notice served by her on the landlord and they considered that she was trespassing at the property. They gave her 7 days to vacate the property and advised her that the premises would be boarded up and the access gates locked on 29 May.

Contractors sent to board up the property on 29 May reported that Ms MacGilvray was still there.

On 3 June, Ms Zheng once again visited the property and confirmed that Ms MacGilvray was still in occupation. She has refused to move. Findings

I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord is entitled to possession of the premises which are identified in the portfolio of properties being managed by the landlord in the Property Management Services Agreement between the landlord and NZTA. I am also satisfied that Ms MacGilvray terminated her tenancy by notice effective 19 March 2025. Ms MacGilvray returned to the property on or about 3 May 2025 but she had no legal right to occupy the property after the termination date on 19 March. On 22 May, the landlord gave her until 29 May to leave the property but she has failed to do so. She had no legal right to occupy the premises after 29 May 2025.

In summary, Ms MacGilvray has no legal right of occupation at the premises and is currently in possession of the premises as a trespasser and/or a squatter. The grounds for an order under s65 RTA have been met and the landlord is granted immediate possession of the premises.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5302159 — Tenancy dispute at 17 Borrows Road, Wellsford, RD 4, Wellsford 0974

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5302159 — Tenancy dispute at 17 Borrows Road, Wellsford, RD 4, Wellsford 0974

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions