What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4973373?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4973373?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4973373?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4973373?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10781718-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4973373?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4973373?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4973373?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4973373?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10781718-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 Dickson Street, Dunedin, Dunedin 9014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4973373 — Unit Titles

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal has received an application from an occupant of the premises for which a possession order was granted. The applicant seeks various orders, but because she was not a tenant of the premises, the question the Tribunal must decide at this time is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute.

BACKGROUND

The background can be summarised reasonably succinctly as follows: a. Ms Scott was a prior owner of the premises. Ms Scott had a mortgage over the premises with ASB Bank Limited. b. Ms Scott defaulted on payments, and the property was sold (a mortgagee sale). c. Mr Kirby and Ms Kelsey Marie-Martini-Sinclair purchased the property, and title was transferred to them on 30 April 2024. d. Following the transfer of the property, Ms Scott remained in possession of the property and refused to leave. e. Mr Kirby applied to the Tenancy Tribunal for a possession order. f. On 4 July 2024 the Tribunal issued a possession order. The Adjudicator was satisfied that Mr Kirby and Ms Martini-Sinclair had a right to possession of the premises, and that Ms Scott did not have any lawful right of possession, so a possession order was granted under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). g. Ms Scott challenged the Tribunal’s decision to the District Court on appeal. While the appeal is yet to be heard, it is the case that Ms Scott applied to the District Court for a stay. That stay application was declined. The District Court considered the appeal to be without merit, and that the Tribunals possession order decision appeared correct, concluding there would be no basis to order a stay. 1 h. On 2 August 2024 Ms Scott was evicted from the premises via the Bailiff and Police, and possession was given to Mr Kirby. i. The premises had extensive belongings present, which Mr Kirby needed to have put into storage. j. On 15 August 2024 Ms Scott filed this application with the Tribunal. Wide-ranging claims have been made including assault, unlawful entry, breaches around storage, withholding of goods and breach of privacy.

ANALYSIS

The preliminary matter to consider is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider Ms Scott’s claims, and for the reasons I will now explain, I find it does not.
The Tribunal’s authority is found in the RTA. Section 77 confirms that the Tribunal has the following jurisdiction: 77Jurisdiction of the Tribunal (1) The Tribunal has, subject to the Limitation Act 2010, jurisdiction to determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that – 1 Jennifer May Scott v Stacey Samuel Kirby [2024] NZDC 17833. (a) Exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) Relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at the material time.
There is an exception that arises in section 65 with squatters as I will discuss shortly, but the problem for Ms Scott, is that she is not a tenant, and Mr Kirby is not a landlord. Therefore the Tribunal cannot adjudicate this dispute – because it is not a dispute between a tenant and landlord.
The terms ‘tenant’ and ‘landlord’ are defined in section 2, but in short are the grantee and grantor of tenancy under a tenancy agreement. In this case Mr Kirby has not granted Ms Scott any right to the tenancy. In fact the opposite is the case.
Furthermore, the term ‘tenancy’ is defined as follows: tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy
Again Ms Scott does not have a right to occupy the premises, and nor does she pay rent, so there is no ‘tenancy’.
I have no reservation in concluding that Ms Scott is not a tenant, Mr Kirby is not a landlord, and there is no residential tenancy arising. That being the case, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider this claim any further.
I will address one exception to the above. I have said that the Tribunal only considers disputes between tenants and landlords, but there is one important exception, and that is found in section 65. Section 65 is a provision where Parliament has granted the Tenancy Tribunal authority to make possession orders to have squatters removed from residential premises. A squatter is a person in possession of premises without any lawful right, particularly when they are not tenants. When Ms Scott failed to hand over the premises to the new owners, she became a squatter as the law would know it.
In any event, Section 65 expressly confirms that the Tribunal can make orders granting possession (from squatters) even when there is no tenancy present. Section 65(3) states: (3) To avoid doubt, the Tribunal has jurisdiction under this section even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.
What this means in effect is that the Tribunal can make orders under the RTA against landlords and tenants, AND make orders under section 65 which relate to a non-tenant occupier and person with a right of occupation. 2 But the only order that can be made under section 65 is a possession order, not any other orders that may be requested. For example let’s say the landlord had the locks changed during the eviction of a squatter, while the Tribunal could have ordered the squatter be evicted, we could not also order the cost for the lock change.
I note however that the parties conversed at the hearing, and may have reached an agreement in relation to the goods. I express no view on that matter because I have no jurisdiction to do so. But I suspect there will be a continuing dispute in relation to debts incurred by the Respondent, but those will not be disputes that the Tenancy Tribunal could consider.
Finally, Ms Scott has applied for name suppression. This application is declined. Name suppression can be ordered when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding, which Ms Scott was not. There would be no basis for me to extend my discretion to order name suppression otherwise.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal has received an application from an occupant of the premises for which a possession order was granted. The applicant seeks various orders, but because she was not a tenant of the premises, the question the Tribunal must decide at this time is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute.

BACKGROUND

The background can be summarised reasonably succinctly as follows: a. Ms Scott was a prior owner of the premises. Ms Scott had a mortgage over the premises with ASB Bank Limited. b. Ms Scott defaulted on payments, and the property was sold (a mortgagee sale). c. Mr Kirby and Ms Kelsey Marie-Martini-Sinclair purchased the property, and title was transferred to them on 30 April 2024. d. Following the transfer of the property, Ms Scott remained in possession of the property and refused to leave. e. Mr Kirby applied to the Tenancy Tribunal for a possession order. f. On 4 July 2024 the Tribunal issued a possession order. The Adjudicator was satisfied that Mr Kirby and Ms Martini-Sinclair had a right to possession of the premises, and that Ms Scott did not have any lawful right of possession, so a possession order was granted under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). g. Ms Scott challenged the Tribunal’s decision to the District Court on appeal. While the appeal is yet to be heard, it is the case that Ms Scott applied to the District Court for a stay. That stay application was declined. The District Court considered the appeal to be without merit, and that the Tribunals possession order decision appeared correct, concluding there would be no basis to order a stay. 1 h. On 2 August 2024 Ms Scott was evicted from the premises via the Bailiff and Police, and possession was given to Mr Kirby. i. The premises had extensive belongings present, which Mr Kirby needed to have put into storage. j. On 15 August 2024 Ms Scott filed this application with the Tribunal. Wide-ranging claims have been made including assault, unlawful entry, breaches around storage, withholding of goods and breach of privacy.

ANALYSIS

The preliminary matter to consider is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider Ms Scott’s claims, and for the reasons I will now explain, I find it does not.
The Tribunal’s authority is found in the RTA. Section 77 confirms that the Tribunal has the following jurisdiction: 77Jurisdiction of the Tribunal (1) The Tribunal has, subject to the Limitation Act 2010, jurisdiction to determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that – 1 Jennifer May Scott v Stacey Samuel Kirby [2024] NZDC 17833. (a) Exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) Relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at the material time.
There is an exception that arises in section 65 with squatters as I will discuss shortly, but the problem for Ms Scott, is that she is not a tenant, and Mr Kirby is not a landlord. Therefore the Tribunal cannot adjudicate this dispute – because it is not a dispute between a tenant and landlord.
The terms ‘tenant’ and ‘landlord’ are defined in section 2, but in short are the grantee and grantor of tenancy under a tenancy agreement. In this case Mr Kirby has not granted Ms Scott any right to the tenancy. In fact the opposite is the case.
Furthermore, the term ‘tenancy’ is defined as follows: tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy
Again Ms Scott does not have a right to occupy the premises, and nor does she pay rent, so there is no ‘tenancy’.
I have no reservation in concluding that Ms Scott is not a tenant, Mr Kirby is not a landlord, and there is no residential tenancy arising. That being the case, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider this claim any further.
I will address one exception to the above. I have said that the Tribunal only considers disputes between tenants and landlords, but there is one important exception, and that is found in section 65. Section 65 is a provision where Parliament has granted the Tenancy Tribunal authority to make possession orders to have squatters removed from residential premises. A squatter is a person in possession of premises without any lawful right, particularly when they are not tenants. When Ms Scott failed to hand over the premises to the new owners, she became a squatter as the law would know it.
In any event, Section 65 expressly confirms that the Tribunal can make orders granting possession (from squatters) even when there is no tenancy present. Section 65(3) states: (3) To avoid doubt, the Tribunal has jurisdiction under this section even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.
What this means in effect is that the Tribunal can make orders under the RTA against landlords and tenants, AND make orders under section 65 which relate to a non-tenant occupier and person with a right of occupation. 2 But the only order that can be made under section 65 is a possession order, not any other orders that may be requested. For example let’s say the landlord had the locks changed during the eviction of a squatter, while the Tribunal could have ordered the squatter be evicted, we could not also order the cost for the lock change.
I note however that the parties conversed at the hearing, and may have reached an agreement in relation to the goods. I express no view on that matter because I have no jurisdiction to do so. But I suspect there will be a continuing dispute in relation to debts incurred by the Respondent, but those will not be disputes that the Tenancy Tribunal could consider.
Finally, Ms Scott has applied for name suppression. This application is declined. Name suppression can be ordered when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding, which Ms Scott was not. There would be no basis for me to extend my discretion to order name suppression otherwise.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4973373 — Unit Titles at 7 Dickson Street, Dunedin, Dunedin 9014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4973373 — Unit Titles at 7 Dickson Street, Dunedin, Dunedin 9014

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions