What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5199191?

The tribunal order states: The application of Parkes Ave Limited is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5199191?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5199191?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5199191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11675394-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5199191?

The tribunal order states: The application of Parkes Ave Limited is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5199191?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5199191?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5199191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11675394-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

36 Parkes Avenue, Saint Johns Hill, Whanganui 4501 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5199191 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Parkes Ave Limited did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time, request an adjournment, or notify the Tribunal the matter has settled. That application is dismissed. See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Mr McLachlan attended the hearing. In his application, he had asked for the following: I have a signed and date offer of tenancy which the Mr Hudson has chosen to ignore, I accepted the offer of tenancy, yet Mr Hudson is trying to remove me illegally with a expired sale and purchased agreement. ... I ask that the tenancy tribunal look at my application asap, due to Mr Hudson trying to evict me without proper notice.

In an order dated 17 February 2025 in proceedings numbered 5117148 a different adjudicator found that there was no tenancy agreement between the parties and granted Parkes Ave Limited a possession order.

At today’s hearing, Mr Hudson said that this was wrong, that there had been an earlier email of 4 March 2022 in which a tenancy was granted. He produced a copy of an email in which a refund of the deposit of $18,000 was offered along with the offer of a tenancy agreement.

Mr Hudson also wanted to understand how the Tribunal could make orders about an agreement for sale and purchase if this was not a tenancy.

As was explained to him today, under section 78(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether any premises are or are not, residential premises to which this Act applies.

At paragraphs 11 and 12 of the decision made on 15 February 2025, Adjudicator G Baker said: The fact that the Deed has not been signed does not alter the nature of the parties’ contractual relationship: it remains that of vendor and purchaser under the contract. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the relationship changed to that of landlord and tenant. Indeed, the landlord’s email evidence is that the respondent rejected an offer of that relationship. The respondent has failed to provide any documentary evidence in support of his claim that the applicant agreed to a residential tenancy. On the contrary, the applicant has provided clear documentary evidence that the respondent rejected the offer of a tenancy and accepted an extension of the contract.

The offer and rejection referred to were covered in paragraph 5 of the decision. That exchange occurred in June and July of 2022.

At today’s hearing it was explained to Mr McLachlan that the finding that there was no tenancy agreement had already been made and so the Tribunal cannot rehear the matter. This is the doctrine of “res judicata” which prevents a party from re-litigating a matter which has already been litigated. Mr McLachlan was told that if he thinks that the Tribunal is wrong, he may appeal the decision. He is out of time, but it is possible he may apply for leave to bring a late appeal.

It was also explained that there is one specific order that the Tribunal can make regarding residential premises where there is no tenancy agreement. That is under section 65. In the decision dated 15 February 2025 the adjudicator found that the requirements of section 65 were met and granted a possession order to Parkes Ave Limited.

It was explained to Mr McLachlan that the present application, 5186156, would therefore be dismissed.

Mr McLachlan would like it recorded that he intends to seek a Judicial Review.

Order

The application of Parkes Ave Limited is dismissed.
The application of Garry Herbert McLachlan is dismissed.

Reasons

Parkes Ave Limited did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time, request an adjournment, or notify the Tribunal the matter has settled. That application is dismissed. See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Mr McLachlan attended the hearing. In his application, he had asked for the following: I have a signed and date offer of tenancy which the Mr Hudson has chosen to ignore, I accepted the offer of tenancy, yet Mr Hudson is trying to remove me illegally with a expired sale and purchased agreement. ... I ask that the tenancy tribunal look at my application asap, due to Mr Hudson trying to evict me without proper notice.
In an order dated 17 February 2025 in proceedings numbered 5117148 a different adjudicator found that there was no tenancy agreement between the parties and granted Parkes Ave Limited a possession order.
At today’s hearing, Mr Hudson said that this was wrong, that there had been an earlier email of 4 March 2022 in which a tenancy was granted. He produced a copy of an email in which a refund of the deposit of $18,000 was offered along with the offer of a tenancy agreement.
Mr Hudson also wanted to understand how the Tribunal could make orders about an agreement for sale and purchase if this was not a tenancy.
As was explained to him today, under section 78(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether any premises are or are not, residential premises to which this Act applies.
At paragraphs 11 and 12 of the decision made on 15 February 2025, Adjudicator G Baker said: The fact that the Deed has not been signed does not alter the nature of the parties’ contractual relationship: it remains that of vendor and purchaser under the contract. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the relationship changed to that of landlord and tenant. Indeed, the landlord’s email evidence is that the respondent rejected an offer of that relationship. The respondent has failed to provide any documentary evidence in support of his claim that the applicant agreed to a residential tenancy. On the contrary, the applicant has provided clear documentary evidence that the respondent rejected the offer of a tenancy and accepted an extension of the contract.
The offer and rejection referred to were covered in paragraph 5 of the decision. That exchange occurred in June and July of 2022.
At today’s hearing it was explained to Mr McLachlan that the finding that there was no tenancy agreement had already been made and so the Tribunal cannot rehear the matter. This is the doctrine of “res judicata” which prevents a party from re-litigating a matter which has already been litigated. Mr McLachlan was told that if he thinks that the Tribunal is wrong, he may appeal the decision. He is out of time, but it is possible he may apply for leave to bring a late appeal.
It was also explained that there is one specific order that the Tribunal can make regarding residential premises where there is no tenancy agreement. That is under section 65. In the decision dated 15 February 2025 the adjudicator found that the requirements of section 65 were met and granted a possession order to Parkes Ave Limited.
It was explained to Mr McLachlan that the present application, 5186156, would therefore be dismissed.
Mr McLachlan would like it recorded that he intends to seek a Judicial Review.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5199191 — Tenancy dispute at 36 Parkes Avenue, Saint Johns Hill, Whanganui 4501

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5199191 — Tenancy dispute at 36 Parkes Avenue, Saint Johns Hill, Whanganui 4501

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