What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4601951 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4601951?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4601951?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4601951?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9198030-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4601951 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4601951?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4601951?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4601951?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9198030-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4601951 — Boarding House

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
By way of declaration, it is noted that the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the relationship or agreement between the parties.
The application is struck out.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted via teleconference.
This hearing was convened to consider jurisdiction.
[The landlord/s] advertised for a flatmate and [the tenant/s] moved in. An agreement was formed with [the tenant/s] to rent a room in [the landlord/s] home for $200.00 per week and with a 3 weeks’ bond. The agreement provided that any dispute should be determined by the Disputes Tribunal.
The tenancy commenced on 25 February 2023 and ended on 20 May 2023. [The tenant’s] has applied to the Tribunal seeking a refund of his bond.
[The landlord/s] explained that the house has three bedrooms, and her son sleeps in one of these. The third bedroom was rented to [the tenant/s]. They shared the use of the rest of the house.
As discussed at the hearing, a preliminary issue that needs to be determined is jurisdiction. The key question is whether the agreement amounts to a tenancy agreement between a landlord and tenant covered under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) or an agreement between flatmates and excluded under the RTA.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute between a landlord and a tenant, or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant (section 77(1) RTA).
Section 5 of the RTA details exclusions to the RTA. Section 5(n) specifically excludes arrangements where the premises are being used for residence by the landlord or family. This section envisages owners of a home renting out their spare rooms in a flatmate or boarding type situation.
The exception is if the premise is a boarding house. A boarding house is defined in section 66B of the RTA as residential premises containing one or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants of the boarding house that is occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least six tenants at any one time. This is clearly not a boarding house situation as there was no intention or actuality of the landlord having six other flatmates/boarders at any one time.
A ‘flatmate’ resides in the premises by way of a licence from the owner of the premises In Musson v Dobrisek & Ors DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006-032-36, 5 May 2006, Judge Broadmore considered the definition of a flatmate. He states (at para [22]: “By ‘flatmates’ I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, all occupants are on the same footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens.”
Having considered this situation I am satisfied that it clearly falls within the exception detailed in section 5(n) of the RTA. [The landlord/s] was effectively [the tenant/s]’s landlord, and the premises are the home in which they live. The house was still being used by [the landlord/s] and her son. Therefore, the agreement is not covered by the RTA.
Further, the nature of the agreement entered into between these parties does not amount to a tenancy agreement. [The landlord/s] had no intention to part with possession of the premises. She was seeking to share her home with another person, who she considered a flatmate or boarder.
Accordingly, this was a boarding or flatmate arrangement, which is not one the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction over. Therefore, the application is struck out.
If [the tenant/s] wishes to progress his claim, he will need to file an application in the Disputes Tribunal. Suppression order
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to suppress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion if in the public interest to do so. [The tenant/s] sought suppression and although he was not successful with his application, as the application was genuinely mistakenly filed, I consider it just to suppress the parties’ names and identifying details. It could be prejudicial to name the parties before the matter is properly determined.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
By way of declaration, it is noted that the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the relationship or agreement between the parties.
The application is struck out.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted via teleconference.
This hearing was convened to consider jurisdiction.
[The landlord/s] advertised for a flatmate and [the tenant/s] moved in. An agreement was formed with [the tenant/s] to rent a room in [the landlord/s] home for $200.00 per week and with a 3 weeks’ bond. The agreement provided that any dispute should be determined by the Disputes Tribunal.
The tenancy commenced on 25 February 2023 and ended on 20 May 2023. [The tenant’s] has applied to the Tribunal seeking a refund of his bond.
[The landlord/s] explained that the house has three bedrooms, and her son sleeps in one of these. The third bedroom was rented to [the tenant/s]. They shared the use of the rest of the house.
As discussed at the hearing, a preliminary issue that needs to be determined is jurisdiction. The key question is whether the agreement amounts to a tenancy agreement between a landlord and tenant covered under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) or an agreement between flatmates and excluded under the RTA.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute between a landlord and a tenant, or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant (section 77(1) RTA).
Section 5 of the RTA details exclusions to the RTA. Section 5(n) specifically excludes arrangements where the premises are being used for residence by the landlord or family. This section envisages owners of a home renting out their spare rooms in a flatmate or boarding type situation.
The exception is if the premise is a boarding house. A boarding house is defined in section 66B of the RTA as residential premises containing one or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants of the boarding house that is occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least six tenants at any one time. This is clearly not a boarding house situation as there was no intention or actuality of the landlord having six other flatmates/boarders at any one time.
A ‘flatmate’ resides in the premises by way of a licence from the owner of the premises In Musson v Dobrisek & Ors DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006-032-36, 5 May 2006, Judge Broadmore considered the definition of a flatmate. He states (at para [22]: “By ‘flatmates’ I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, all occupants are on the same footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens.”
Having considered this situation I am satisfied that it clearly falls within the exception detailed in section 5(n) of the RTA. [The landlord/s] was effectively [the tenant/s]’s landlord, and the premises are the home in which they live. The house was still being used by [the landlord/s] and her son. Therefore, the agreement is not covered by the RTA.
Further, the nature of the agreement entered into between these parties does not amount to a tenancy agreement. [The landlord/s] had no intention to part with possession of the premises. She was seeking to share her home with another person, who she considered a flatmate or boarder.
Accordingly, this was a boarding or flatmate arrangement, which is not one the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction over. Therefore, the application is struck out.
If [the tenant/s] wishes to progress his claim, he will need to file an application in the Disputes Tribunal. Suppression order
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to suppress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion if in the public interest to do so. [The tenant/s] sought suppression and although he was not successful with his application, as the application was genuinely mistakenly filed, I consider it just to suppress the parties’ names and identifying details. It could be prejudicial to name the parties before the matter is properly determined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4601951 — Boarding House

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4601951 — Boarding House

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions