What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4615799 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 4615799?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4615799?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4615799?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9335380-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4615799 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 4615799?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4615799?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4615799?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9335380-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

58 Kayes Road, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4615799 — Boarding House

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] tenancy was not a boarding house tenancy.
[The tenant/s] tenancy is excluded pursuant to s5(1)(n) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
[The tenant/s] application is struck out as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this dispute.

Reasons

Both parties attended today’s case conference hearing.
The issue for determination at the case conference hearing was to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s claims.
The Applicant lived at the premises for just under two years. The Applicant claims that she was a boarding house tenant.
The Respondent has a tenancy in place with the owner of the property. The Respondent has lived in the property with his wife and members of his whanau for 15 years. The Respondent’s wife tells me that they have raised a grandchild in the home and that the home is a true family home, in that members of their extended family stay when they need a place to live.

Did the Applicant have a boarding house tenancy?

The test for what is a boarding house determined in the High Court case of Karmarker v Pandem and others [2018] NZHC 693 [17 April 2018] at para [38]:
Does the house contain one or more bedrooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants?
Is the house intended to be occupied by 6 or more tenants?
Is the tenancy intended to, or does it in fact last for 28 days or more?
Are tenants granted exclusive rights to occupy particular bedrooms whether that occupancy is for single or shared use?
Does the right to occupy a particular bedroom derive from the tenancy agreement between the individual tenant and the landlord rather than from a collective decision of the tenants? If the answer to all the questions is yes, then the property is a boarding house.
A tenancy is defined in the RTA: as tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent;
The key element is that an occupant must pay rent to be considered a tenancy.
The Respondent told me today that as almost all of the occupants in the property are close blood relatives and that another occupant is considered family because of his close connection since he was a child with the family. As a result of this connection there is no agreement and therefore no obligation for those occupants who are family or considered family to pay weekly rent, if they are working or receiving income, they contribute what they can when they can.
[The tenant/s] was the only occupant at the property who was expected to pay rent to the Respondent and had an agreement to do so. She was therefore the only tenant. The house has never been intended to be occupied by six tenants. It is occupied by six occupants, one of whom is a tenant of the respondent.
Having found that the premises are not intended to be occupied by six tenants then I find that this is not a Boarding House Tenancy. Does s5(1)(n) RTA apply?
Section 5 sets out the exclusions to the RTA, if any exclusion applies then the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear any disputes between the party.
Section 5 (1)(n) provides: 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.
I am satisfied that the Respondent has principally used the premises as a place of residence for his family, I say this for the following reasons: •The Respondent, his wife, his granddaughter who was under 18 at the time the Applicant lived at the premises and the Respondent’s stepson lived at the property with the Applicant. •The property was the Respondent’s family home of 15 years. •The Applicant was the only person outside of the family to live at the property. •The principal use of the property was as a residence to the family and the letting out of a room to the Applicant was ancillary to this purpose. •There was no expectation that the family members pay a set rent each week, some paid nothing at all, others paid towards food or family expenses when they could.
Having determined that the exclusion applies then the Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s claims and therefore the Applicant’s claims are struck out. If the Applicant wishes to make a claim in the Disputes Tribunal that is the correct forum to determine this dispute.
If the Applicant does make an application to the Disputes Tribunal, then she should attach a copy of this order to her application.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] tenancy was not a boarding house tenancy.
[The tenant/s] tenancy is excluded pursuant to s5(1)(n) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
[The tenant/s] application is struck out as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this dispute.

Reasons

Both parties attended today’s case conference hearing.
The issue for determination at the case conference hearing was to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s claims.
The Applicant lived at the premises for just under two years. The Applicant claims that she was a boarding house tenant.
The Respondent has a tenancy in place with the owner of the property. The Respondent has lived in the property with his wife and members of his whanau for 15 years. The Respondent’s wife tells me that they have raised a grandchild in the home and that the home is a true family home, in that members of their extended family stay when they need a place to live.

Did the Applicant have a boarding house tenancy?

The test for what is a boarding house determined in the High Court case of Karmarker v Pandem and others [2018] NZHC 693 [17 April 2018] at para [38]:
Does the house contain one or more bedrooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants?
Is the house intended to be occupied by 6 or more tenants?
Is the tenancy intended to, or does it in fact last for 28 days or more?
Are tenants granted exclusive rights to occupy particular bedrooms whether that occupancy is for single or shared use?
Does the right to occupy a particular bedroom derive from the tenancy agreement between the individual tenant and the landlord rather than from a collective decision of the tenants? If the answer to all the questions is yes, then the property is a boarding house.
A tenancy is defined in the RTA: as tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent;
The key element is that an occupant must pay rent to be considered a tenancy.
The Respondent told me today that as almost all of the occupants in the property are close blood relatives and that another occupant is considered family because of his close connection since he was a child with the family. As a result of this connection there is no agreement and therefore no obligation for those occupants who are family or considered family to pay weekly rent, if they are working or receiving income, they contribute what they can when they can.
[The tenant/s] was the only occupant at the property who was expected to pay rent to the Respondent and had an agreement to do so. She was therefore the only tenant. The house has never been intended to be occupied by six tenants. It is occupied by six occupants, one of whom is a tenant of the respondent.
Having found that the premises are not intended to be occupied by six tenants then I find that this is not a Boarding House Tenancy. Does s5(1)(n) RTA apply?
Section 5 sets out the exclusions to the RTA, if any exclusion applies then the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear any disputes between the party.
Section 5 (1)(n) provides: 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.
I am satisfied that the Respondent has principally used the premises as a place of residence for his family, I say this for the following reasons: •The Respondent, his wife, his granddaughter who was under 18 at the time the Applicant lived at the premises and the Respondent’s stepson lived at the property with the Applicant. •The property was the Respondent’s family home of 15 years. •The Applicant was the only person outside of the family to live at the property. •The principal use of the property was as a residence to the family and the letting out of a room to the Applicant was ancillary to this purpose. •There was no expectation that the family members pay a set rent each week, some paid nothing at all, others paid towards food or family expenses when they could.
Having determined that the exclusion applies then the Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s claims and therefore the Applicant’s claims are struck out. If the Applicant wishes to make a claim in the Disputes Tribunal that is the correct forum to determine this dispute.
If the Applicant does make an application to the Disputes Tribunal, then she should attach a copy of this order to her application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4615799 — Boarding House at 58 Kayes Road, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4615799 — Boarding House at 58 Kayes Road, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the Applicant have a boarding house tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Did the Applicant have a boarding house tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions