What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5380502?

The tribunal order states: Land Information New Zealand is granted possession of the premises at 1631

How much money was awarded in case 5380502?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5380502?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5380502?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13272103-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5380502?

The tribunal order states: Land Information New Zealand is granted possession of the premises at 1631

How much money was awarded in case 5380502?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5380502?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5380502?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13272103-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1631 Nuhaka Opoutama Road, Opoutama, Mahia 4198 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5380502 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Land Information New Zealand is granted possession of the premises at 1631 Nuhaka Opoutama Road, Opoutama, Mahia 4198 immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote Teams hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Earl.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given to the tenant. The notice of hearing was sent to the tenant at the email address for service for the tenant shown in the Tenancy Agreement. The notice informs the tenant that if they are unable to attend the hearing by Teams video link, they are to telephone the Tribunal on the number provided in the notice to be admitted to the hearing.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.
This was a periodic tenancy which commenced on 5 July 2018.
The tenancy ended on 15 October 2025. The landlord arranged for service of a 90-day notice terminating the tenancy. The notice was served in person on the tenant. Affidavit evidence of that service taking place was provided.
Section 65 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides; 65 Eviction of squatters (1) 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 position of the premises to the applicant.
Section 65 RTA requires the Tribunal to answer two questions. • Is the applicant landlord entitled to possession of any residential premises? • Is the tenant in possession of the premises pursuant to any right of occupation granted by any person having lawful authority to grant that right?
The first question can be answered simply by reference to the record of title. The copy of the record provided to the Tribunal shows that the Crown is the owner.
The tenant had previously been entitled to reside at the premises pursuant to a Tenancy Agreement. That tenancy agreement being a periodic tenancy, the landlord was entitled to terminate the tenancy by providing the tenant with a 90- day notice (s.51(1) RTA). The notice terminating the tenancy was served on the tenant on 15 July 2025. The notice provides that the tenancy was to end on 15 October 2025.
I find that the two elements of s.65 RTA are proven by the landlord. The landlord is the party entitled to possession of the premises. The tenant is not in possession of the premises pursuant to any right of occupation granted by the landlord. Possession orders
Section 64 RTA provides in part; 64 Possession orders (1) Subject to subsection (2), on the application of any person entitled to possession of the premises following the termination of a tenancy, the Tribunal shall make an order granting possession of the premises to that person. (2) No possession order may be made more than 90 days after the date of the termination of the tenancy.
It is more than 90 days after the date of termination of the tenancy.
The landlord invites the Tribunal to make a possession order despite the wording of s.64(2) RTA.
The landlord says that the final date of the tenancy was 15 October 2025. The landlord filed the application for a possession order with the Tribunal on 5 November 2025. The landlord requested a hearing date before the end of 2025, but this was not allocated.
The landlord invites the Tribunal to exercise its discretion under s.96(2)(a) RTA to extend the 90-day time limit for making the possession order due to there having been an unavoidable administrative delay. The delay not being as a result of any action taken or not taken by the landlord .
Section 96 (2)(a) RTA provides: (3) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to any proceedings before the Tribunal,- (a) extend anytime limit.
The landlord further submits that in considering its discretion under s.92(2) RTA the Tribunal should be guided by s.85 RTA . That section provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
The Tribunal has held in Crockers Property Management Ltd v Ransfield [2013] NZTT Auckland 3813 and Wellington Regional Council v Loan TT Lower Hutt TT650/96 30 July 1996, that a strictly literal approach to section 64(2) RTA would be “Iniquitous”. The Tribunal should determine the dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case. Whilst I am not bound by those decisions, I agree with the reasoning.
In the circumstances of this case, the delay taking any possession order past the 90-day period in s.64(2) RTA cannot be said to be the fault of the landlord (or the tenant). The delay is as a result of administrative issues with Tenancy Services. A delay of that nature should not result in the landlord’s application being dismissed. After considering the merits and justice of this case, I make a possession order in favour of the landlord.

Order

Land Information New Zealand is granted possession of the premises at 1631 Nuhaka Opoutama Road, Opoutama, Mahia 4198 immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote Teams hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Earl.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given to the tenant. The notice of hearing was sent to the tenant at the email address for service for the tenant shown in the Tenancy Agreement. The notice informs the tenant that if they are unable to attend the hearing by Teams video link, they are to telephone the Tribunal on the number provided in the notice to be admitted to the hearing.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.
This was a periodic tenancy which commenced on 5 July 2018.
The tenancy ended on 15 October 2025. The landlord arranged for service of a 90-day notice terminating the tenancy. The notice was served in person on the tenant. Affidavit evidence of that service taking place was provided.
Section 65 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides; 65 Eviction of squatters (1) 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 position of the premises to the applicant.
Section 65 RTA requires the Tribunal to answer two questions. • Is the applicant landlord entitled to possession of any residential premises? • Is the tenant in possession of the premises pursuant to any right of occupation granted by any person having lawful authority to grant that right?
The first question can be answered simply by reference to the record of title. The copy of the record provided to the Tribunal shows that the Crown is the owner.
The tenant had previously been entitled to reside at the premises pursuant to a Tenancy Agreement. That tenancy agreement being a periodic tenancy, the landlord was entitled to terminate the tenancy by providing the tenant with a 90- day notice (s.51(1) RTA). The notice terminating the tenancy was served on the tenant on 15 July 2025. The notice provides that the tenancy was to end on 15 October 2025.
I find that the two elements of s.65 RTA are proven by the landlord. The landlord is the party entitled to possession of the premises. The tenant is not in possession of the premises pursuant to any right of occupation granted by the landlord. Possession orders
Section 64 RTA provides in part; 64 Possession orders (1) Subject to subsection (2), on the application of any person entitled to possession of the premises following the termination of a tenancy, the Tribunal shall make an order granting possession of the premises to that person. (2) No possession order may be made more than 90 days after the date of the termination of the tenancy.
It is more than 90 days after the date of termination of the tenancy.
The landlord invites the Tribunal to make a possession order despite the wording of s.64(2) RTA.
The landlord says that the final date of the tenancy was 15 October 2025. The landlord filed the application for a possession order with the Tribunal on 5 November 2025. The landlord requested a hearing date before the end of 2025, but this was not allocated.
The landlord invites the Tribunal to exercise its discretion under s.96(2)(a) RTA to extend the 90-day time limit for making the possession order due to there having been an unavoidable administrative delay. The delay not being as a result of any action taken or not taken by the landlord .
Section 96 (2)(a) RTA provides: (3) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to any proceedings before the Tribunal,- (a) extend anytime limit.
The landlord further submits that in considering its discretion under s.92(2) RTA the Tribunal should be guided by s.85 RTA . That section provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
The Tribunal has held in Crockers Property Management Ltd v Ransfield [2013] NZTT Auckland 3813 and Wellington Regional Council v Loan TT Lower Hutt TT650/96 30 July 1996, that a strictly literal approach to section 64(2) RTA would be “Iniquitous”. The Tribunal should determine the dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case. Whilst I am not bound by those decisions, I agree with the reasoning.
In the circumstances of this case, the delay taking any possession order past the 90-day period in s.64(2) RTA cannot be said to be the fault of the landlord (or the tenant). The delay is as a result of administrative issues with Tenancy Services. A delay of that nature should not result in the landlord’s application being dismissed. After considering the merits and justice of this case, I make a possession order in favour of the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5380502 — Tenancy dispute at 1631 Nuhaka Opoutama Road, Opoutama, Mahia 4198

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5380502 — Tenancy dispute at 1631 Nuhaka Opoutama Road, Opoutama, Mahia 4198

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions