A sister’s act of kindness towards her brother after their parents died has morphed into a family spat that even tenancy officials can’t resolve.

In 2019, the man, who had previously lived with their parents, was invited to put a cabin on his sister’s property.

The sister jointly owns and shares the property with her daughter and son-in-law, and the invitation to her brother was extended until he could find other accommodation.

But along with the cabin, the brother also took several unused vehicles, which he parked at the property, and he added a bathroom as an extension, which was not correctly plumbed.

The trio became increasingly concerned about the untidy and unhygienic state of the cabin and the old cars.

However, their attempts to tell the man to keep the cabin clean and remove the vehicles fell on deaf ears.

In early 2024, the trio cleaned the cabin and told him that if he didn’t keep it in that condition and remove the vehicles, they’d give him 90 days’ notice to leave.

They say the cabin returned to an untidy state and the cars were never moved.

Fed up, they applied to the Tenancy Tribunal for an order to terminate the man’s tenancy.

But in a recently released decision on the matter, the tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction to make a ruling on the application.

While it can generally rule on all residential tenancies, there are specific exclusions.

That included premises on bare land, with or without facilities, on which the tenant has the right, under the tenancy agreement, to put a mobile home, caravan or other means of shelter.

“The applicants agreed the respondent could occupy their land and gave him the right to bring a cabin on to the land in which he can live,” the tribunal stated.

“The respondent does not enter the applicants’ dwellings but lives entirely in the cabin. The applicants confirmed they have not had any contact with the respondent for the last month.”

The decision went on to say that even if the applicants owned the cabin and allowed the man to live there, the Tenancy Act still wouldn’t apply because he is a family member.

It said the law could only be applied if both parties had agreed to sign a tenancy agreement at the start of the arrangement.

The tribunal suppressed the names and identifying details of all parties.

Catherine Hutton is an Open Justice reporter, based in Wellington. She has worked as a journalist for 20 years, including at the Waikato Times and RNZ. Most recently she was working as a media adviser at the Ministry of Justice.