What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4607514 about?

The tribunal order states: The claim is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 4607514?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4607514?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4607514?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9488600-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4607514 about?

The tribunal order states: The claim is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 4607514?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4607514?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4607514?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9488600-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 708, 145 Symonds Street, Eden Terrace, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4607514 — Rent arrears

Order

The claim is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The parties’ tenancy agreement dated 23 February 2022 was entered into to enable the original tenant Airedale Property Trust (as a sub-landlord) to sublet the premises to provide social housing to third parties or other individuals (as sub-tenant). The subsequent assignment of the tenancy to Airedale Residential Limited in August 2022 did not change the flavour of the parties’ tenancy; Airedale Residential Limited is also a social housing provider who uses the premises to provide social housing to their sub-tenants.
The landlord seeks rent arrears and damages against Airedale Residential Limited after the tenancy had ended.
I have to determine in the first instance whether this tenancy falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’).
The landlord has not adduced the parties’ material tenancy agreement dated 23 February 2022 but both parties accept that the tenancy agreement was not entered into to provide accommodation to Airedale Property Trust nor Airedale Residential Limited (collectively referred to as “Airedale”). It was not possible for Airedale Residential Limited, as an incorporated entity, to “personally” occupy the premises.
I am satisfied that the tenancy agreement was not entered into to evade the RTA.
I find that the RTA does not apply to this tenancy between the landlord and Airedale.
Section 5(1)(s) RTA states that the Act does not apply where the tenancy agreement— (i)is genuinely entered into to enable a tenant (the sublandlord) to sublet the premises to provide accommodation for— (A) other people for commercial gain; or (B) the sublandlord’s employees; or (C) persons on low incomes; or (D) persons with special housing needs; or (E) persons whose disabilities mean that they need support or supervision in their housing; and (ii)is not entered into to provide accommodation for the sublandlord or to evade this Act or any of its provisions; and (iii)expressly provides that the sublandlord will not personally occupy the premises:
There is nothing before the Tenancy Tribunal to indicate that the parties have contracted back into the RTA pursuant to section 8 RTA.
In order for parties to excluded tenancies to agree that the provisions of the RTA shall apply in respect of the tenancy (which is otherwise excluded), they must do so knowingly, in appreciation that their tenancy is otherwise excluded but nevertheless agreed in writing that all or some of the other RTA provisions shall apply, minus the material exclusion in question. See section 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
For example, the parties to this tenancy that is excluded under s5(1)(s) RTA could have expressly stated in the tenancy agreement dated 23 February 2022 that notwithstanding s5(1)(s) RTA, all other provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 apply to this agreement or with the exception of s5(1)(s) RTA, all other provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 apply to this agreement.
I adopt the ruling of the Tribunal in Petrus and Blommestijn v Visionwest Community Trust Inc [2020] NZTT Waitakere 4245116 that the RTA is not really designed for the parties’ purpose which was to enable the tenant to provide social housing. The RTA is designed to apply to residential landlords and tenants who live in the property and are responsible for it. It applies for example to the tenancy contracts between the community trust and their social housing tenants. There are certain terms and conditions which exemplify that the landlord is not a residential landlord in the sense that the RTA regards that term, such as the tenant (being the community trust) being responsible for maintaining the property and repairing all damage done to the property. The repair work had to be completed by the tenant (the community trust) before the property is returned to the landlord.
Likewise in this case, the tenant Airedale is not a residential tenant in the sense that the RTA regards that term.
The parties’ tenancy is therefore excluded under section 5(1)(s) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the claim filed by must fail for want of jurisdiction.

Order

The claim is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The parties’ tenancy agreement dated 23 February 2022 was entered into to enable the original tenant Airedale Property Trust (as a sub-landlord) to sublet the premises to provide social housing to third parties or other individuals (as sub-tenant). The subsequent assignment of the tenancy to Airedale Residential Limited in August 2022 did not change the flavour of the parties’ tenancy; Airedale Residential Limited is also a social housing provider who uses the premises to provide social housing to their sub-tenants.
The landlord seeks rent arrears and damages against Airedale Residential Limited after the tenancy had ended.
I have to determine in the first instance whether this tenancy falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’).
The landlord has not adduced the parties’ material tenancy agreement dated 23 February 2022 but both parties accept that the tenancy agreement was not entered into to provide accommodation to Airedale Property Trust nor Airedale Residential Limited (collectively referred to as “Airedale”). It was not possible for Airedale Residential Limited, as an incorporated entity, to “personally” occupy the premises.
I am satisfied that the tenancy agreement was not entered into to evade the RTA.
I find that the RTA does not apply to this tenancy between the landlord and Airedale.
Section 5(1)(s) RTA states that the Act does not apply where the tenancy agreement— (i)is genuinely entered into to enable a tenant (the sublandlord) to sublet the premises to provide accommodation for— (A) other people for commercial gain; or (B) the sublandlord’s employees; or (C) persons on low incomes; or (D) persons with special housing needs; or (E) persons whose disabilities mean that they need support or supervision in their housing; and (ii)is not entered into to provide accommodation for the sublandlord or to evade this Act or any of its provisions; and (iii)expressly provides that the sublandlord will not personally occupy the premises:
There is nothing before the Tenancy Tribunal to indicate that the parties have contracted back into the RTA pursuant to section 8 RTA.
In order for parties to excluded tenancies to agree that the provisions of the RTA shall apply in respect of the tenancy (which is otherwise excluded), they must do so knowingly, in appreciation that their tenancy is otherwise excluded but nevertheless agreed in writing that all or some of the other RTA provisions shall apply, minus the material exclusion in question. See section 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
For example, the parties to this tenancy that is excluded under s5(1)(s) RTA could have expressly stated in the tenancy agreement dated 23 February 2022 that notwithstanding s5(1)(s) RTA, all other provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 apply to this agreement or with the exception of s5(1)(s) RTA, all other provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 apply to this agreement.
I adopt the ruling of the Tribunal in Petrus and Blommestijn v Visionwest Community Trust Inc [2020] NZTT Waitakere 4245116 that the RTA is not really designed for the parties’ purpose which was to enable the tenant to provide social housing. The RTA is designed to apply to residential landlords and tenants who live in the property and are responsible for it. It applies for example to the tenancy contracts between the community trust and their social housing tenants. There are certain terms and conditions which exemplify that the landlord is not a residential landlord in the sense that the RTA regards that term, such as the tenant (being the community trust) being responsible for maintaining the property and repairing all damage done to the property. The repair work had to be completed by the tenant (the community trust) before the property is returned to the landlord.
Likewise in this case, the tenant Airedale is not a residential tenant in the sense that the RTA regards that term.
The parties’ tenancy is therefore excluded under section 5(1)(s) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the claim filed by must fail for want of jurisdiction.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4607514 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 708, 145 Symonds Street, Eden Terrace, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4607514 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 708, 145 Symonds Street, Eden Terrace, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions