How much money was awarded in case 4668429?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4668429?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4668429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9570672-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4668429?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4668429?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4668429?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9570672-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

602 Nelson Street, Mahora, Hastings 4112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4668429 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4668429 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal makes this declaration under section 78(1)(a) of the Residential

Order

The Tribunal makes this declaration under section 78(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986: The tenancy agreements between the applicant company and its employees are excluded from the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by virtue of section 5(1)(s) of that Act. The provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, including the requirement to lodge bonds, do not apply to these tenancies, subject to the comments made below.

Reasons

Mr Connolley and Ms Beck represented the applicant company All Trades Labour Hire Limited (ATLHL). There is no tenant party.
The applicant seeks a declaration as to the status of the tenancy agreements between it and its employees.
The applicant has a residential tenancy agreement with a landlord where it is the tenant.
The applicant is an accredited work visa employer and recruits staff from overseas to meet demand within the New Zealand employment market.
The employees are offered accommodation in houses rented by the applicant company. Almost all the staff choose to stay in the accommodation offered although they are not bound to.
The applicant requires a deposit from the employees to cover any damage at the end of the tenancies.
Although the applicant as a tenant has paid a bond to its landlord (lodged with Tenancy Services) it does not lodge the deposits (bonds) its receives from its employees.
The applicant is concerned to do the correct thing and has sought a declaration as part of its best practice approach to its activities.
The applicant company remains the employer of the staff it recruits even though they work for other employers. In that sense the applicant is an employment recruitment company.
Arrangements such as this can either be considered straight forward subtenancies where the tenant under a tenancy agreement becomes a sublandlord to a subtenant, or, in the employment arena, can be considered service tenancies.
In those cases, the landlord (either as sublandlord or as the employer) has an obligation to comply with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). That includes the obligation to lodge bonds with the Bond Centre.
But the fact situation here is different and comfortably falls within the section 5(1)(s) RTA exclusion.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the tenancy agreements are genuinely entered into to enable the tenant (the sublandlord ATLHL) to sublet the premises to provide accommodation for its employees; are not entered into to provide accommodation for the sublandlord or to evade the RTA or any of its provisions; and expressly provide that the sublandlord will not personally occupy the premises (i.e., will not use the premises as a company office or space).
So, the applicant should ensure that each employee who takes up the offer of accommodation signs a tenancy agreement that states the 3 requirements to establish an excluded tenancy: • It is genuinely entered into to enable ATLHL to sublet the premises to provide accommodation for its employees; and • Is not entered into to provide accommodation for ATLHL or to evade any of the provisions of the RTA; and • ATLHL will not personally occupy the premises.
If the tenancy agreements state those requirements, the tenancies will be excluded tenancies under section 5(1)(s) RTA and ATLHL as the sublandlord will have no legal obligation to lodge any deposits taken as bonds with the Bond Centre.
Mr Connolley said the company ensured that employee deposits are held in a separate bank account. That seems a sensible and prudent approach.
The applicant sought a name suppression order in its application. However, this is not a successful application as such given that it is a declaration only. I make no order for suppression as the section 95A RTA criteria are not met.

Order

The Tribunal makes this declaration under section 78(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986: The tenancy agreements between the applicant company and its employees are excluded from the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by virtue of section 5(1)(s) of that Act. The provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, including the requirement to lodge bonds, do not apply to these tenancies, subject to the comments made below.

Reasons

Mr Connolley and Ms Beck represented the applicant company All Trades Labour Hire Limited (ATLHL). There is no tenant party.

The applicant seeks a declaration as to the status of the tenancy agreements between it and its employees.

The applicant has a residential tenancy agreement with a landlord where it is the tenant.

The applicant is an accredited work visa employer and recruits staff from overseas to meet demand within the New Zealand employment market.

The employees are offered accommodation in houses rented by the applicant company. Almost all the staff choose to stay in the accommodation offered although they are not bound to.

The applicant requires a deposit from the employees to cover any damage at the end of the tenancies.

Although the applicant as a tenant has paid a bond to its landlord (lodged with Tenancy Services) it does not lodge the deposits (bonds) its receives from its employees.

The applicant is concerned to do the correct thing and has sought a declaration as part of its best practice approach to its activities.

The applicant company remains the employer of the staff it recruits even though they work for other employers. In that sense the applicant is an employment recruitment company.

Arrangements such as this can either be considered straight forward subtenancies where the tenant under a tenancy agreement becomes a sublandlord to a subtenant, or, in the employment arena, can be considered service tenancies.

In those cases, the landlord (either as sublandlord or as the employer) has an obligation to comply with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). That includes the obligation to lodge bonds with the Bond Centre.

But the fact situation here is different and comfortably falls within the section 5(1)(s) RTA exclusion.

The Tribunal is satisfied that the tenancy agreements are genuinely entered into to enable the tenant (the sublandlord ATLHL) to sublet the premises to provide accommodation for its employees; are not entered into to provide accommodation for the sublandlord or to evade the RTA or any of its provisions; and expressly provide that the sublandlord will not personally occupy the premises (i.e., will not use the premises as a company office or space).

So, the applicant should ensure that each employee who takes up the offer of accommodation signs a tenancy agreement that states the 3 requirements to establish an excluded tenancy: • It is genuinely entered into to enable ATLHL to sublet the premises to provide accommodation for its employees; and • Is not entered into to provide accommodation for ATLHL or to evade any of the provisions of the RTA; and • ATLHL will not personally occupy the premises.

If the tenancy agreements state those requirements, the tenancies will be excluded tenancies under section 5(1)(s) RTA and ATLHL as the sublandlord will have no legal obligation to lodge any deposits taken as bonds with the Bond Centre.

Mr Connolley said the company ensured that employee deposits are held in a separate bank account. That seems a sensible and prudent approach.

The applicant sought a name suppression order in its application. However, this is not a successful application as such given that it is a declaration only. I make no order for suppression as the section 95A RTA criteria are not met.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4668429 — Tenancy dispute at 602 Nelson Street, Mahora, Hastings 4112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4668429 — Tenancy dispute at 602 Nelson Street, Mahora, Hastings 4112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions