What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4643249 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4643249?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4643249?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4643249?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9508309-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4643249 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4643249?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4643249?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4643249?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9508309-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4643249 — Healthy homes

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenant’s application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The parties entered into an Agreement to Lease (“the agreement”) in 2013 of premises which were formerly used for the purposes of rearing chickens.
The agreement is a standard agreement to lease used for commercial leases. It provided: • For the lease of two sheds comprising 372m2. • A commencement date of 1 November 2013. • An annual rental of $13,000.00 including GST per annum. • A “Business Use” of “Craft equipment and craft business”. • The lease period was from month to month. • The landlord was responsible for all outgoings such as rates and insurance premiums, while the tenant was responsible for utilities such as electricity and telecommunications. • The parties could enter into an ADLS Deed of Lease for commercial premises if either party required it.
In summary, the parties entered into a lease for two sheds to be used for storage purposes. They agreed that the rent of $250.00 per week did not change throughout the tenancy.
The tenant advised that: • Without the consent of the landlord or the local council, she installed a log burner, a stove, a washing machine, a dishwasher and a shower. • She lived in the premises, almost from the start of the tenancy. • She did not obtain the consent of the landlord and assumed his consent from his saying that she could do whatever she liked in the sheds. • The sheds were made of fibrolite or similar material. The walls did not extend to the roof. Instead, there was a portion of chicken wire to allow for ventilation and which she covered over. • Her business changed from making plaster ornaments to selling books and arranging book fairs. • The landlord knew that she was living in the shed.
The landlord advised that: • The premises were advertised for lease for storage purposes on [website]. • The parties had correctly entered into a commercial lease for commercial premises and the landlord never consented either formally or informally to it being occupied for residential purposes. • The landlord is a GST registered company providing commercial premises for lease. • The tenant told him at the start of the tenancy that she would live in her truck and not at the premises. • He gave no suggestion let alone permission that she could live in the shed. Given that its previous use was to raise chickens, he never considered that she would live in it. • He did not mind what she stored in the shed. • He knew that the tenant had installed the log burner without council or his consent. • Other tenants use their sheds to store cars and other goods. • The very large shed was full of the tenant’s possessions. Whether they were books or other items which the tenant intended to sell, it was difficult to tell as the shed was filled with boxes. • The rental did not increase at all over the nine years of the lease. Jurisdiction
As noted at the start of the hearing, the only matter for the Tribunal’s consideration was the preliminary matter of whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the tenant’s application.
The tenant believes that as the premises were her home, they are residential premises.
The landlord believes that they are and were commercial premises and that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) has no jurisdiction. The onus of proof is on the landlord to prove on the balance of probabilities that the RTA does not apply. See section 10 RTA.
Commercial premises are defined in section 2(1) RTA simply as premises which are not residential. Section 2(3) RTA provides that where premises are used for both commercial and residential purposes, they are deemed to be residential premises unless it is proved that they were let principally for purposes other than residential.
What the parties themselves call the arrangement is not determinative. Rather, whether the premises were “principally used” for commercial or residential premises requires a consideration of the substance of the arrangement, including: the overall context of the land and buildings; the nature of the premises (for example, whether the premises contained facilities that one would associate with proper residential purposes); the nature of the commercial use; and the space occupied for commercial use.
On the facts of this case: • The premises were only suitable for storage purposes and it was on this basis that they were let to the tenant. At the time the premises were let to the tenant, the only facilities were a toilet and a “smoko” room. • The tenant signed a lease for the premises for a solely commercial purpose. At the time of entering into the lease, there was no residential part of the premises which could be leased. • The premises were industrial in their nature and could not at the start of the tenancy nor during its course have met any applicable standards for a residential dwelling. It lacked kitchen, laundry and washing facilities. It was uninsulated. In short, it was and remained a disused chicken shed. • The tenant did not provide any corroborative evidence that the landlord gave permission for her to use the premises for residential purposes. She has not persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the landlord consented to the premises being used for residential purposes. The tenant chose to live on the premises. The landlord did not consent. • The tenant acknowledged that she unilaterally undertook alterations to the premises so that she could live there. These alterations were in breach of the commercial lease. She also knew that these alterations were in breach of council requirements. • A tenant cannot unilaterally alter the nature of legal relations between landlord and tenant so that a lease which was for commercial purposes (storage) can become residential. • Most of the area of the premises was used to store the tenant’s goods and possessions and so its principal use remained commercial rather than residential.
I am satisfied that the landlord has discharged the onus resting on him under section 2(3) RTA of establishing that the premises were let principally for purposes other than residential purposes. It is clear that they were let principally for commercial purposes and the appellant's residential use was unauthorised by the landlord.
The tenant’s application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenant’s application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The parties entered into an Agreement to Lease (“the agreement”) in 2013 of premises which were formerly used for the purposes of rearing chickens.
The agreement is a standard agreement to lease used for commercial leases. It provided: • For the lease of two sheds comprising 372m2. • A commencement date of 1 November 2013. • An annual rental of $13,000.00 including GST per annum. • A “Business Use” of “Craft equipment and craft business”. • The lease period was from month to month. • The landlord was responsible for all outgoings such as rates and insurance premiums, while the tenant was responsible for utilities such as electricity and telecommunications. • The parties could enter into an ADLS Deed of Lease for commercial premises if either party required it.
In summary, the parties entered into a lease for two sheds to be used for storage purposes. They agreed that the rent of $250.00 per week did not change throughout the tenancy.
The tenant advised that: • Without the consent of the landlord or the local council, she installed a log burner, a stove, a washing machine, a dishwasher and a shower. • She lived in the premises, almost from the start of the tenancy. • She did not obtain the consent of the landlord and assumed his consent from his saying that she could do whatever she liked in the sheds. • The sheds were made of fibrolite or similar material. The walls did not extend to the roof. Instead, there was a portion of chicken wire to allow for ventilation and which she covered over. • Her business changed from making plaster ornaments to selling books and arranging book fairs. • The landlord knew that she was living in the shed.
The landlord advised that: • The premises were advertised for lease for storage purposes on [website]. • The parties had correctly entered into a commercial lease for commercial premises and the landlord never consented either formally or informally to it being occupied for residential purposes. • The landlord is a GST registered company providing commercial premises for lease. • The tenant told him at the start of the tenancy that she would live in her truck and not at the premises. • He gave no suggestion let alone permission that she could live in the shed. Given that its previous use was to raise chickens, he never considered that she would live in it. • He did not mind what she stored in the shed. • He knew that the tenant had installed the log burner without council or his consent. • Other tenants use their sheds to store cars and other goods. • The very large shed was full of the tenant’s possessions. Whether they were books or other items which the tenant intended to sell, it was difficult to tell as the shed was filled with boxes. • The rental did not increase at all over the nine years of the lease. Jurisdiction
As noted at the start of the hearing, the only matter for the Tribunal’s consideration was the preliminary matter of whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the tenant’s application.
The tenant believes that as the premises were her home, they are residential premises.
The landlord believes that they are and were commercial premises and that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) has no jurisdiction. The onus of proof is on the landlord to prove on the balance of probabilities that the RTA does not apply. See section 10 RTA.
Commercial premises are defined in section 2(1) RTA simply as premises which are not residential. Section 2(3) RTA provides that where premises are used for both commercial and residential purposes, they are deemed to be residential premises unless it is proved that they were let principally for purposes other than residential.
What the parties themselves call the arrangement is not determinative. Rather, whether the premises were “principally used” for commercial or residential premises requires a consideration of the substance of the arrangement, including: the overall context of the land and buildings; the nature of the premises (for example, whether the premises contained facilities that one would associate with proper residential purposes); the nature of the commercial use; and the space occupied for commercial use.
On the facts of this case: • The premises were only suitable for storage purposes and it was on this basis that they were let to the tenant. At the time the premises were let to the tenant, the only facilities were a toilet and a “smoko” room. • The tenant signed a lease for the premises for a solely commercial purpose. At the time of entering into the lease, there was no residential part of the premises which could be leased. • The premises were industrial in their nature and could not at the start of the tenancy nor during its course have met any applicable standards for a residential dwelling. It lacked kitchen, laundry and washing facilities. It was uninsulated. In short, it was and remained a disused chicken shed. • The tenant did not provide any corroborative evidence that the landlord gave permission for her to use the premises for residential purposes. She has not persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the landlord consented to the premises being used for residential purposes. The tenant chose to live on the premises. The landlord did not consent. • The tenant acknowledged that she unilaterally undertook alterations to the premises so that she could live there. These alterations were in breach of the commercial lease. She also knew that these alterations were in breach of council requirements. • A tenant cannot unilaterally alter the nature of legal relations between landlord and tenant so that a lease which was for commercial purposes (storage) can become residential. • Most of the area of the premises was used to store the tenant’s goods and possessions and so its principal use remained commercial rather than residential.
I am satisfied that the landlord has discharged the onus resting on him under section 2(3) RTA of establishing that the premises were let principally for purposes other than residential purposes. It is clear that they were let principally for commercial purposes and the appellant's residential use was unauthorised by the landlord.
The tenant’s application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4643249 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4643249 — Healthy homes

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