Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5506391 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 19 Jun 2026 · Published 19 Jun 2026 · Application 5506391
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
J Greene
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
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
- Bruce Wright and John Grieve are granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Wright represented the landlord. The tenant attended with his represented approved by the Tribunal. I conducted the hearing by phone. Background
- The tenancy started in September 2018. The tenant is an employee of the landlord, but the tenancy is not a service tenancy. Rather, the landlord purchased the property to ensure that the tenant, a valued employee, had a place to live for life or until he chose to vacate.
- In or around February 2026 the tenant’s son moved into the premises. He forced his father out and burnt his possessions. That person, not a tenant, has remained in possession since.
- The landlord tried to enforce a trespass notice on the unauthorised occupant, but the police deemed it a tenancy dispute and would not assist. Law
- Section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides the Tribunal with jurisdiction in this case. While there is no landlord tenant relationship between the landlord and the current occupant of the premises, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant possession to the applicant. Discussion
- Mr Wright gave evidence that he and Mr Grieve are the registered owners of the property where the tenancy premises are located.
- I am satisfied that the tenant’s son is in possession of the premises as a squatter or trespasser or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted to him by any person having lawful authority to grant that right 1 .
- Possession of the premises must be granted, and is, to the lawful owner of the premises immediately. Other issues
- The tenant has continued to pay rent even though he has not lived at the premises since around 22 February 2026. The rent has been deducted from his wages.
- In the absence of a written tenancy agreement, the tenancy would probably be considered as a periodic tenancy. That would usually result in a liability for rent for 21 days after the landlord became aware that the tenant had abandoned the tenancy.
- The facts here are unusual and I cannot give any indication of how the Tribunal would regard any application by the tenant for a rent refund. 1 See section 65(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
- I advised the parties that they can get free advice from Tenancy Services. I imagine that the parties will be able to resolve any outstanding issues. If they cannot, either party can make an application for any remedies they consider they might have. Name suppression
- The landlord did not seek name suppression. The tenant sought name suppression. I have made an order suppressing the tenant’s name. There is no public interest that requires publication in this case as there are sensitive family issues as between the tenant and his son, unlawfully in possession. Furthermore, the tenant consented to the order being made. Agreements between parties if reached at mediation are confidential. The outcome here should be seen in that light.
- Finally, I record that the landlord did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.