What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4606065 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4606065?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4606065?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4606065?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9413576-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4606065 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4606065?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4606065?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4606065?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9413576-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4606065 — Rent arrears

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The claim is struck out.

Reasons

The landlord has requested termination of the tenancy due to rent arrears.
The first issue to be determined is whether the claim is in jurisdiction.
[The tenant/s] has submitted that he and [The owner], the owner of the property, lived together at [Tenancy address suppressed]. Their relationship lasted about five years. They were married for three years. They have a child together. They separated in 2022. On 20 August 2022 they signed a tenancy agreement. [The tenant/s] paid $1,800.00 to [The owner] as bond however [The owner] did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. [The tenant/s] said that she used it to pay a bond on a property she was going to rent. I note that when management of the property was given to the applicant the bond was lodged on 10 January 2023 and the applicant incorrectly informed the Bond Centre that the tenancy began on 4 December 2022.
[The tenant/s] stated that the property is part of a property relationship dispute which is being heard in the Family Court.
Section 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Section 10 RTA provides that, where a party to proceedings contends that the Act does not apply, they must establish the facts supporting their contention. In other words, they have the burden of proving the Act does not apply.
Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides that the Act does not apply: where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.
Section 2 RTA states that a “member of the landlord’s or owner’s family”, in relation to a landlord or an owner, means— (a) any person who is or has been related to the landlord or owner— (ii) by or through marriage, a civil union, or a de facto relationship; (my bold)
I am satisfied that section 5(n) and the section 2 definition above apply to this tenancy.
Section 8 RTA provides that, where the Act is excluded by sections 5 to 7, if the premises are used for residential purposes, the parties can contract back into some or all of the provisions of the Act.
At the hearing I questioned [The tenant/s] about whether there was any discussion about contracting into the provisions of the RTA or anything that he and his wife recorded or signed about this. He said they did not. I am aware that the District Court in Featherston v Barfoot and Thompson Limited [2015] NZDC 12810 rejected the argument that section 8 RTA required a provision written into the agreement specifically referring to the section. In Featherston v Barfoot and Thompson Limited the parties signed a standard tenancy agreement including that the bond would be paid into the Bond Centre. However in the present case the owner’s action of using the bond for her own purposes is not consistent with a person that has agreed to contract back into the provisions of the RTA.
Apart from the fact that this tenancy is excluded from the RTA, it appears likely that [The tenant/s] may have a financial interest in the property he is occupying. He also has custody rights regarding his daughter visiting him at [Tenancy address suppressed]. It does not seem appropriate for the Tenancy Tribunal to evict [The tenant/s] from a property he may have a financial interest in. It would be more appropriate for the rights around occupying the property to be determined along with other relationship property matters.
Because the tenancy is excluded from the RTA the application is struck out.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The claim is struck out.

Reasons

The landlord has requested termination of the tenancy due to rent arrears.
The first issue to be determined is whether the claim is in jurisdiction.
[The tenant/s] has submitted that he and [The owner], the owner of the property, lived together at [Tenancy address suppressed]. Their relationship lasted about five years. They were married for three years. They have a child together. They separated in 2022. On 20 August 2022 they signed a tenancy agreement. [The tenant/s] paid $1,800.00 to [The owner] as bond however [The owner] did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. [The tenant/s] said that she used it to pay a bond on a property she was going to rent. I note that when management of the property was given to the applicant the bond was lodged on 10 January 2023 and the applicant incorrectly informed the Bond Centre that the tenancy began on 4 December 2022.
[The tenant/s] stated that the property is part of a property relationship dispute which is being heard in the Family Court.
Section 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Section 10 RTA provides that, where a party to proceedings contends that the Act does not apply, they must establish the facts supporting their contention. In other words, they have the burden of proving the Act does not apply.
Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides that the Act does not apply: where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.
Section 2 RTA states that a “member of the landlord’s or owner’s family”, in relation to a landlord or an owner, means— (a) any person who is or has been related to the landlord or owner— (ii) by or through marriage, a civil union, or a de facto relationship; (my bold)
I am satisfied that section 5(n) and the section 2 definition above apply to this tenancy.
Section 8 RTA provides that, where the Act is excluded by sections 5 to 7, if the premises are used for residential purposes, the parties can contract back into some or all of the provisions of the Act.
At the hearing I questioned [The tenant/s] about whether there was any discussion about contracting into the provisions of the RTA or anything that he and his wife recorded or signed about this. He said they did not. I am aware that the District Court in Featherston v Barfoot and Thompson Limited [2015] NZDC 12810 rejected the argument that section 8 RTA required a provision written into the agreement specifically referring to the section. In Featherston v Barfoot and Thompson Limited the parties signed a standard tenancy agreement including that the bond would be paid into the Bond Centre. However in the present case the owner’s action of using the bond for her own purposes is not consistent with a person that has agreed to contract back into the provisions of the RTA.
Apart from the fact that this tenancy is excluded from the RTA, it appears likely that [The tenant/s] may have a financial interest in the property he is occupying. He also has custody rights regarding his daughter visiting him at [Tenancy address suppressed]. It does not seem appropriate for the Tenancy Tribunal to evict [The tenant/s] from a property he may have a financial interest in. It would be more appropriate for the rights around occupying the property to be determined along with other relationship property matters.
Because the tenancy is excluded from the RTA the application is struck out.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4606065 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4606065 — Rent arrears

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