What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4461226 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4461226?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4461226?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4461226?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9239309-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4461226 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4461226?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4461226?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4461226?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9239309-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4461226 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details. This is necessary because the Tribunal has previously suppressed the landlord’s name.
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the landlord’s claims. The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing in person, the application having been transferred on my direction from [redacted]. Background
This application has a complex background. The Tribunal has issued two orders, one on 16 August 2022 and one on 19 June 2023.
In the first order, the Tribunal found that there was a residential tenancy between the parties and awarded the landlord rent arrears and power costs. The Tribunal dismissed the tenant’s cross application for $57,000.00 for his time and materials spent on the premises because the claim did not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The Tribunal found that the tenant did not occupy the premises under a sale and purchase agreement; any purported agreement came later and was separate from the tenancy agreement.
Importantly, the Tribunal found: It also follows that if there was any agreement that could result in the landlord having an obligation to reimburse the tenant for his time and expenditure on the premises or the rent, it is not part of the tenancy agreement and therefore the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with it.
After the Tribunal issued its decision, the tenant sued the landlord in the Disputes Tribunal for costs he says he incurred to repair the property after he moved into the premises in June 2020. Cowie DTR held that the tenant had failed to prove he was entitled to be reimbursed for the amount of his claim.
The tenant has not appealed that decision, although today he said he intends to.
In the second order, the Tribunal set out the background in some detail and adjourned the hearing, with directions, following a telephone conference.
Despite the claim against her in the Disputes Tribunal, the landlord did not counter claim in that Tribunal. Rather she filed an application in the Tenancy Tribunal for kitchen replacement costs ($4,543.89); repairs ($6,600.00); other costs ($919.01); and 10 weeks’ rent ($2,000.00).
Today, I told the parties that I would first have to consider whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the landlord’s claim and to issue a jurisdiction decision.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

I have decided that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear and decide the landlord’s claims. They form part of a civil dispute, part of which the Disputes Tribunal has already heard and dismissed (the tenant’s claims against the landlord).
It follows from the Tribunal’s earlier finding, quoted above, that there was both a residential tenancy and a separate civil dispute resulting from an alleged sale and purchase agreement.
The Tribunal found that there was a residential tenancy between the parties, but it did not specifically define when the tenancy started.
The evidence I heard today, which differs slightly from the evidence the adjudicator recorded in his decision, establishes the follow timeline.
The tenant moved into the premises sometime in June 2020. The parties agreed that he could move in rent free ‘to bring the place up to standard’. The landlord says that the tenant was desperate, effectively homeless. The tenant denies that.
They both agreed no rent was paid or required. The landlord specifically confirmed in evidence that she conceded to give the tenant possession rent free for the period from June to 18 September 2020, and that there was no tenancy during that time.
Then from 18 September 2020 a formal tenancy agreement (verbal apparently) was reached, and the tenant began paying rent of $200.00 per week.
Tenancy is defined in section 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) as follows: In relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent:
Tenancy agreement is defined as: In relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises;
So, for there to be a residential tenancy rent must be paid.
For the period between June 2020 after the tenant moved in, and 18 September 2020 when the parties reached an agreement about the terms of the tenancy and the tenant started paying rent, I find there was no residential tenancy between the parties. There was a civil arrangement between them for the tenant to live in the house ‘to bring the place up to scratch’ and agreements about reimbursement.
The landlord confirmed, and the tenant agreed, that all the landlord’s claims as set out in the application before the Tribunal relate to the period between June 2020 and 18 September 2020.
Because the claims relate to a period when there was no residential tenancy (unlike the application for rent arrears and power costs decided previously by the Tribunal which related to the period when there was a tenancy) this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and decide them.
Because the claims have arisen out of a civil dispute for a period of time before the parties were in a landlord/tenant relationship, they must be determined by the Disputes Tribunal (should the landlord decide to pursue them there). Result
The Tribunal declines jurisdiction to hear the landlord’s civil claims against the tenant. The application is therefore dismissed.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details. This is necessary because the Tribunal has previously suppressed the landlord’s name.
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the landlord’s claims. The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing in person, the application having been transferred on my direction from [redacted]. Background
This application has a complex background. The Tribunal has issued two orders, one on 16 August 2022 and one on 19 June 2023.
In the first order, the Tribunal found that there was a residential tenancy between the parties and awarded the landlord rent arrears and power costs. The Tribunal dismissed the tenant’s cross application for $57,000.00 for his time and materials spent on the premises because the claim did not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The Tribunal found that the tenant did not occupy the premises under a sale and purchase agreement; any purported agreement came later and was separate from the tenancy agreement.
Importantly, the Tribunal found: It also follows that if there was any agreement that could result in the landlord having an obligation to reimburse the tenant for his time and expenditure on the premises or the rent, it is not part of the tenancy agreement and therefore the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with it.
After the Tribunal issued its decision, the tenant sued the landlord in the Disputes Tribunal for costs he says he incurred to repair the property after he moved into the premises in June 2020. Cowie DTR held that the tenant had failed to prove he was entitled to be reimbursed for the amount of his claim.
The tenant has not appealed that decision, although today he said he intends to.
In the second order, the Tribunal set out the background in some detail and adjourned the hearing, with directions, following a telephone conference.
Despite the claim against her in the Disputes Tribunal, the landlord did not counter claim in that Tribunal. Rather she filed an application in the Tenancy Tribunal for kitchen replacement costs ($4,543.89); repairs ($6,600.00); other costs ($919.01); and 10 weeks’ rent ($2,000.00).
Today, I told the parties that I would first have to consider whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the landlord’s claim and to issue a jurisdiction decision.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

I have decided that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear and decide the landlord’s claims. They form part of a civil dispute, part of which the Disputes Tribunal has already heard and dismissed (the tenant’s claims against the landlord).
It follows from the Tribunal’s earlier finding, quoted above, that there was both a residential tenancy and a separate civil dispute resulting from an alleged sale and purchase agreement.
The Tribunal found that there was a residential tenancy between the parties, but it did not specifically define when the tenancy started.
The evidence I heard today, which differs slightly from the evidence the adjudicator recorded in his decision, establishes the follow timeline.
The tenant moved into the premises sometime in June 2020. The parties agreed that he could move in rent free ‘to bring the place up to standard’. The landlord says that the tenant was desperate, effectively homeless. The tenant denies that.
They both agreed no rent was paid or required. The landlord specifically confirmed in evidence that she conceded to give the tenant possession rent free for the period from June to 18 September 2020, and that there was no tenancy during that time.
Then from 18 September 2020 a formal tenancy agreement (verbal apparently) was reached, and the tenant began paying rent of $200.00 per week.
Tenancy is defined in section 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) as follows: In relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent:
Tenancy agreement is defined as: In relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises;
So, for there to be a residential tenancy rent must be paid.
For the period between June 2020 after the tenant moved in, and 18 September 2020 when the parties reached an agreement about the terms of the tenancy and the tenant started paying rent, I find there was no residential tenancy between the parties. There was a civil arrangement between them for the tenant to live in the house ‘to bring the place up to scratch’ and agreements about reimbursement.
The landlord confirmed, and the tenant agreed, that all the landlord’s claims as set out in the application before the Tribunal relate to the period between June 2020 and 18 September 2020.
Because the claims relate to a period when there was no residential tenancy (unlike the application for rent arrears and power costs decided previously by the Tribunal which related to the period when there was a tenancy) this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and decide them.
Because the claims have arisen out of a civil dispute for a period of time before the parties were in a landlord/tenant relationship, they must be determined by the Disputes Tribunal (should the landlord decide to pursue them there). Result
The Tribunal declines jurisdiction to hear the landlord’s civil claims against the tenant. The application is therefore dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4461226 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4461226 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions