Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5477684 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 7 May 2026 · Published 7 May 2026 · Application 5477684
- Property damage
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
R Harvey-Lane
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- The Tribunal orders suppression of the applicants’ and respondents’ name and identifying details.
- The application is dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The application was filed by the property manager on behalf of both the property manager and the tenant, and the respondents are the owners of the property.
- The applicants seek orders requiring the owners to provide the tenant with vacant possession or occupation of the property. There is also a filed claim relating to a failure to give notice of an intention to sell.
- The respondents informally filed documentation supporting a cross application essentially against the property manager. Background
- The property manager says there was a verbal tenancy agreement under which the tenant was to move into the property. Some belongings were moved into the property as a result of this verbal agreement.
- However, there was no written tenancy agreement signed by the parties and the landlord says they had not been made aware of the tenancy until the Tribunal application was made. They deny that they entered, or authorised, any tenancy agreement and that the property was not ready to be occupied.
- The landlords say that they have been carrying out significant repairs because of previous tenancy damage.
- The tenant has been unable to move into the property and is allegedly incurring Airbnb costs.
- The property manager was acting as agent for the owner at the relevant time. Discussion
- Here a central dispute appears to be whether the property manager had authority from the owners to enter into a tenancy agreement on their behalf. That is an agency dispute between the property manager and the owners.
- Indeed, the property manager has brought the claim against the owners.
- The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine disputes between property managers and property owners about authority or instructions except where necessary to resolve an existing tenancy dispute properly within the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). 1
- In this case, the existence of any tenancy agreement between the tenant and the owners is itself disputed. The owners deny they authorised any tenancy.
- Determining the application as currently framed would therefore require the Tribunal to determine whether the property manager had authority to bind the owners. That issue falls outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
- The application is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- This decision does not prevent the tenant from bringing any claim(s) she may have against the property manager and owners for any losses incurred. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s77(1).
- I have on my own accord granted name suppression to all parties as the issues have fallen outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and any benefit to the public in the decision can be obtained without the publication of names. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 07 May 2026