What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4618909 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4618909?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4618909?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4618909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9251426-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4618909 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4618909?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4618909?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4618909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9251426-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4618909 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord was telephoned twice and messages were left. She had indicated in a letter dated 18 July 2023 to the Tribunal that she would be unable to attend the hearing and made a written submission.
The tenant has applied for the refund of a bond paid to the landlord. The landlord has not filed a crossapplication.
In this Order I refer to the applicant as the tenant and the respondent as the landlord. Background
The tenant responded to an advertisement on the Airbnb website placed by the landlord for a room.
The parties met and entered into an agreement called a Flat/House sharing agreement dated 11 May 2023. It recorded that the agreement was between the Head Tenant and Flatmate.
The agreement provided for the tenant to rent a bedroom for a term from 21 May 2023 until 25 June 2023. It required payment of a bond of $520.00. It provided that “In the event of any dispute, the parties agree that the dispute will be determined by the Disputes Tribunal. Jurisdiction
There is a preliminary issue as to whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim which needs to be resolved.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute between a landlord and a tenant, and/or a guarantor of a tenant, that relates to a residential tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies (see section 77 RTA).
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine disputes between parties other than those in a landlord and tenant relationship.
The key issue here is whether the applicant is a tenant and the respondent the landlord, or whether the parties are flatmates.
Section 2, RTA defines a landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, as the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement. A tenant is the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement.
A tenant is someone who rents a property directly from a landlord and who usually has a written tenancy agreement which records that they are the tenant. A flatmate is someone who lives with a tenant, but their name does not appear on the tenancy agreement. Flatmates are not responsible to the landlord for rent and the state of the property. Instead, they are responsible to the tenant for their share of the rent and other outgoings. Equally, the landlord is responsible to the tenant.
In this case: a) The applicant paid her rent to the landlord, not the owner. b) The landlord held a tenancy agreement with the owner. c) The landlord accepted full responsibility to the owner for damage which she alleges the tenant caused during the tenancy. d) The landlord advertised the room for rent, met with the tenant and agreed on terms without consulting with the owner. e) The tenancy was for a short term of just more than a month. f) Tenants could come and go freely without requiring the owner’s consent. Such arrangements were dealt with by the landlord. g) The tenant would not have been responsible for meeting any more of the rent payable to the owner if the other person occupying a room had moved out. The landlord held that responsibility. h) The landlord and her daughter occupied the property as their home. See section 5(n) RTA.
While the wording of the Flat/House Sharing agreement is relevant, it is not determinative of the issue of jurisdiction. However, it does make the parties’ intentions clear that this was to be a flatting arrangement.
I am satisfied that the arrangement between the parties is not a tenancy agreement but a flatting arrangement. This means that the Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to determine this application.
The application is dismissed.
The Disputes Tribunal is able to hear disputes between flatmates. Suppression
This application does not pertain to a residential tenancy and it has been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Given this, naming of the parties has no public interest and suppression of all party details is ordered.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing by telephone.

The landlord was telephoned twice and messages were left. She had indicated in a letter dated 18 July 2023 to the Tribunal that she would be unable to attend the hearing and made a written submission.

The tenant has applied for the refund of a bond paid to the landlord. The landlord has not filed a crossapplication.

In this Order I refer to the applicant as the tenant and the respondent as the landlord. Background

The tenant responded to an advertisement on the Airbnb website placed by the landlord for a room.

The parties met and entered into an agreement called a Flat/House sharing agreement dated 11 May 2023. It recorded that the agreement was between the Head Tenant and Flatmate.

The agreement provided for the tenant to rent a bedroom for a term from 21 May 2023 until 25 June 2023. It required payment of a bond of $520.00. It provided that “In the event of any dispute, the parties agree that the dispute will be determined by the Disputes Tribunal. Jurisdiction

There is a preliminary issue as to whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim which needs to be resolved.

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute between a landlord and a tenant, and/or a guarantor of a tenant, that relates to a residential tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies (see section 77 RTA).

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine disputes between parties other than those in a landlord and tenant relationship.

The key issue here is whether the applicant is a tenant and the respondent the landlord, or whether the parties are flatmates.

Section 2, RTA defines a landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, as the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement. A tenant is the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement.

A tenant is someone who rents a property directly from a landlord and who usually has a written tenancy agreement which records that they are the tenant. A flatmate is someone who lives with a tenant, but their name does not appear on the tenancy agreement. Flatmates are not responsible to the landlord for rent and the state of the property. Instead, they are responsible to the tenant for their share of the rent and other outgoings. Equally, the landlord is responsible to the tenant.

In this case: a) The applicant paid her rent to the landlord, not the owner. b) The landlord held a tenancy agreement with the owner. c) The landlord accepted full responsibility to the owner for damage which she alleges the tenant caused during the tenancy. d) The landlord advertised the room for rent, met with the tenant and agreed on terms without consulting with the owner. e) The tenancy was for a short term of just more than a month. f) Tenants could come and go freely without requiring the owner’s consent. Such arrangements were dealt with by the landlord. g) The tenant would not have been responsible for meeting any more of the rent payable to the owner if the other person occupying a room had moved out. The landlord held that responsibility. h) The landlord and her daughter occupied the property as their home. See section 5(n) RTA.

While the wording of the Flat/House Sharing agreement is relevant, it is not determinative of the issue of jurisdiction. However, it does make the parties’ intentions clear that this was to be a flatting arrangement.

I am satisfied that the arrangement between the parties is not a tenancy agreement but a flatting arrangement. This means that the Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to determine this application.

The application is dismissed.

The Disputes Tribunal is able to hear disputes between flatmates. Suppression

This application does not pertain to a residential tenancy and it has been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Given this, naming of the parties has no public interest and suppression of all party details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4618909 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4618909 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions