What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4472420 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal makes a declaration that there was no tenancy between the parties.

How much money was awarded in case 4472420?

not have jurisdiction to hear the ap…: $216.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4472420?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4472420?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9770431-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4472420 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal makes a declaration that there was no tenancy between the parties.

How much money was awarded in case 4472420?

not have jurisdiction to hear the ap…: $216.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4472420?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4472420?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9770431-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4472420 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4472420. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
not have jurisdiction to hear the application. 3. By consent: [The landlord/s] agrees to immediately pay [The tenant/s]	$216.00		not have jurisdiction to hear the application. 3. By consent: [The landlord/s] agrees to immediately pay [The tenant/s

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4472420. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
not have jurisdiction to hear the application. 3. By consent: [The landlord/s] agrees to immediately pay [The tenant/s]	$216.00		not have jurisdiction to hear the application. 3. By consent: [The landlord/s] agrees to immediately pay [The tenant/s

Order

The Tribunal makes a declaration that there was no tenancy between the parties.
The application is dismissed on the grounds that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the application.
By consent: [The landlord/s] agrees to immediately pay [The tenant/s] the amount of $216.00 as reimbursement of expenses for work done at the tenancy address.

Reasons

Both applicants attended the hearing on 11 December 2023. The respondent and her legal representative also attended.
There was a prior hearing on 21 August 2023 after which I made an order setting out the issues to be decided.
The first issue to be decided is: “Was there a tenancy between the parties?”
If there was no tenancy, then the Tribunal does not have the legal authority to decide on the tenants’ applications. This is called a “jurisdictional” issue. The law
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies to “every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided”; see s4 RTA [my underlining].
Section 2 of the RTA includes the below definitions: rent means any money, goods, services, or other valuable consideration in the nature of rent to be paid or supplied under a tenancy agreement by the tenant; but does not include any sum of money payable or paid by way of bond 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 tenancy agreement, 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; and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement
A tenancy is a type of contract. For a contract to be binding there must be an intention to be in a legal relationship, an offer and acceptance, sufficient certainty of the main terms, and consideration or something valuable exchanged. The factual events
[The tenant/s] lived in a house situated on a farm at the tenancy address. [The landlord/s] is a director of the company that owns the farm.
There is a family connection between the families of [The landlord/s] and [Tenant 1]. [Tenant 1]’s mother had asked [The landlord/s] if she had any accommodation available which was how the first meeting at the property had come about.
The tenants were homeless at that time and living in very difficult circumstances.
The parties and [Tenant 1]’s mother met at the property on 2 July 2023 and [The landlord/s] agreed that [The tenant/s] and their daughter could come to live at the house immediately. For this to happen, [The tenant/s] agreed to clear out some belongings left by a previous occupant and clean the premises including shampooing the carpet.
It was also agreed that they would repaint some of the internal walls a different colour and repair some holes in one or two rooms. [The landlord/s] agreed to provide materials for this work and/or reimburse them for some costs in doing so.
A future tenancy and possibly also some employment on the farm property for [Tenant 1], were also discussed.
[The landlord/s] says that she told [The tenant/s] that formalising and documenting of a tenancy and any employment would have to be done in consultation with her accountant because the house was part of the farm business. There is no written record of this discussion.
[The tenant/s] did move in and did do cleaning and the removal of belongings and rubbish. They also started painting and other work and spent their own money on some of the materials needed. [The landlord/s] provided some paint. They transferred the electricity account into their names and arranged for their belongings to be transported to the house.
Both parties provided copies of texts between them during the two to three weeks after [The tenant/s] moved into the house. One text from [The landlord/s] says “catch up later this arvo with rent details”, and in another [The tenant/s] say that they “have the Tenancy 25 pages that we have to fill out and sign” and in another text ask if the bond could be waived because of the clean-up work they had done.
There were also messages about the painting and carpet-cleaning.
However, [The landlord/s] then changed her mind about the arrangement. On 25 July 2023, she came to the house and gave [The tenant/s] a handwritten and signed letter which said: Property [address] has a need for my business as employee accommodation, record keeping and vehicle and farm related machinery yard. I ask you to vacate by 7-8-22.
[The tenant/s] emailed back later that day and said that they did not agree to move out as they believed that the oral agreement about occupation of the house and discussion of a future tenancy had been accepted by them. They had spoken to Tenancy Services and been told that a landlord must give tenants a minimum of 63 days’ notice.
There is oral evidence from both sides that a police officer became involved at around this time. A written statement from the officer (dated 14/09/23) was submitted as part of the landlord’s evidence. The officer says that he spoke to [The tenant/s], understood from that conversation that there was an agreement between the parties and “a tenancy in place” and that he then communicated this to the landlord’s lawyer. The officer states that he served “eviction notices” on [The tenant/s] on 31/08/22 after being provided with these by [The landlord/s].
[The landlord/s] confirms that these eviction notices were two letters, addressed to each of [The tenant/s] separately, giving “notice to terminate a periodic tenancy” on 63 days’ notice with the last day of the tenancy as 29/8/22 (“the termination notices”).
The termination notices are standard templates available to be downloaded from the Tenancy Services website onto which [The landlord/s] has handwritten names, address, and date of termination, and signed.
There is much contention about what happened next. However, all I record here is that [The tenant/s] and their daughter were no longer living at the address as from 10 October 2023.
It is agreed by all parties that no written agreement was entered into and that no rent or bond has been paid.

Was there a tenancy?

After hearing and considering the evidence, my decision is that there was no tenancy in this case. The main reasons for my decision are that:- a. There was no rent or bond paid, and b. The arrangement was not intended to be a legal relationship at this early stage. It arose primarily from the family connection between [The landlord/s] and [Tenant 1], and c. The terms of any possible future tenancy or employment were not agreed with enough certainty to be binding.
[The tenant/s] suggest that the work that they did at the house was valuable and was instead of rent. I agree with this however both parties had something to gain from the arrangement as it meant that [The tenant/s] could move into the house immediately. I am not satisfied that the work was of sufficient value to constitute rent especially as the parties expected that [The landlord/s] would reimburse the tenants for any expenses. Also, the nature of the work was not clearly defined. For example, some of it involved painting the walls a different colour rather than for maintenance reasons. This may have been to suit [The tenant/s] as much as [The landlord/s].
There was a discussion between all parties that a tenancy and employment would hopefully be entered into in the future. However, at the beginning it was an agreement that [The tenant/s] could live at the house this did not come to be.
[The tenant/s] say that it was agreed that rent would be $260.00 per week and that a bond of two weeks’ rent would be paid. However, none of the texts between the parties go into this specific detail.
The undefined nature of the arrangement and the fact that no rent was ever paid means that there was no binding tenancy between the parties.
This means that I must dismiss the application because the Tribunal only has the power to make decisions about tenancy disputes. Conclusion
I understand why the situation became confusing and very difficult for everyone. The parties were being given advice and opinions from many places.
I can also understand the disappointment of [The tenant/s] especially given [Tenant 1]’s family connection with the area.
[The landlord/s] agreed at the hearing to reimburse [The tenant/s] for the costs they have itemised, and I make this order by consent.
I have decided to make orders suppressing the names of all parties. This is appropriate as this was an informal arrangement made in good faith at the time.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4472420 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4472420 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions