What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4674092 about?

The tribunal order states: The arrangement between the parties is excluded from the Residential

How much money was awarded in case 4674092?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4674092?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4674092?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9553012-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4674092 about?

The tribunal order states: The arrangement between the parties is excluded from the Residential

How much money was awarded in case 4674092?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4674092?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4674092?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9553012-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

suppressed] Tenancy Tribunal Case 4674092 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The arrangement between the parties is excluded from the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, accordingly the Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the applications made.
The applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held remotely by teleconference. [The applicant’s representative] represented [The applicants] as their lawyer; they also attended.
[The applicant/s] as directors of [the company] filed this application to obtain clarity over the arrangement they had with their daughter [The respondent/s] to reside on the property owned by the company. [The respondent/s] considers that there never was a tenancy arrangement between her and her parents but one more akin to a quasi-ownership arrangement.
There is no dispute that the land at [Tenancy address suppressed] is owned by the company or that the house that is on it was purchased by the company separately, (the ownership of the garage is disputed), but arranged and lived in 1 by [The respondent/s]. It is also agreed that there was no arrangement for rent to be paid by [The respondent/s] whilst living there although she was to undertake some work on the house. It is also agreed that the rest of the property is a working farm.
[The applicant/s] now wish to sell the property with the house in situ and although [The respondent/s] has vacated, she does still have some belongings remaining there which they want removed. It was agreed as part of this hearing that her brother [name] is to remove those items and return them to her within the next fortnight. The property is currently under offer with a settlement date of 9 November 2023 at which point the purchaser is expecting vacant possession of it.

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

The Tribunal’s general jurisdiction, under s77(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) is to: “...determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that— (a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time.”
Section 2 RTA provides that a “landlord” and “tenant” are respectively grantor and grantee of a tenancy. “...tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment...” rent, means any money, goods, services, or other valuable consideration in the nature of rent to be paid or supplied under a tenancy agreement by the tenant; but does not include any sum of money payable or paid by way of bond”
Section 5 of the RTA details exclusions to the RTA. S5(n) specifically excludes arrangements where the premises are being used for residence by any member of the landlord’s family. The exclusion of family type arrangements recognises that, in a family context, the parties may well come to arrangements that are 1 Between February 2022 and May 2023 different from those entered by landlords and tenants negotiating at arms’ length and with a commercial focus. 2
The District Court in Adams v Massey University 3 held, to give effect to the RTA’s true intent and meaning, the exclusions in s 5 should be interpreted strictly and not liberally. If one party considers that the RTA applies and the other does not, the burden of proof is on the party seeking to rely on the apparent exemption. 4
Parties that would otherwise be excluded are entitled to contract into the RTA 5 in writing. Section 85(2) also provides that the Tribunal is to determine disputes “according to the general principles of the law ... and the substantial merits and justice of the case” but that it “shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities”.
As discussed at the hearing, I find that this arrangement is not one to which the RTA applies. I do not find that this was a tenancy as defined in s2 of the RTA and even if I did, I am satisfied that this arrangement is one that is excluded from the RTA by s5(n) RTA. I make this finding for the following reasons: i. On the basis of the evidence submitted, I consider that the arrangement was of a familial character, specifically created because the parties are blood relatives; it was not a commercial undertaking of a renting nature. ii. No rent was to be paid and there was no specific arrangement for services in lieu of rent. iii. [The applicant/s] say they allowed their daughter to live there to help her out. [The respondent/s] says she moved in to help them out on the farm. iv. [The respondent/s] did not have exclusive use of the property, although she did of the house. v. They did not contract into the RTA by forming a tenancy agreement, nor was there any discussion of a similar nature.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the arrangement the parties had was not a tenancy and is therefore excluded from the RTA. Accordingly, I have no jurisdiction to consider their dispute.
In saying that, agreement was reached between the parties regarding the return of [The respondent/s] belongings. 2 Smith v Hills [2020] NZHC 2293 High Court, Hamilton, 4/9/2020, CIV-2020-419-20, Andrew Associate Judge & Mexted v Mexted, Gray and Rusmussen [2021] NZTT Hamilton 4300218, 4297500 3 Adams v Massey University Palmerston North TT 43/94, 10 October 1994. 4 S10 RTA 5 Section 8 RTA
Given the sensitive nature of this situation, I direct that all party details are redacted from the published order 6 .

Order

The arrangement between the parties is excluded from the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, accordingly the Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the applications made.
The applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held remotely by teleconference. [The applicant’s representative] represented [The applicants] as their lawyer; they also attended.
[The applicant/s] as directors of [the company] filed this application to obtain clarity over the arrangement they had with their daughter [The respondent/s] to reside on the property owned by the company. [The respondent/s] considers that there never was a tenancy arrangement between her and her parents but one more akin to a quasi-ownership arrangement.
There is no dispute that the land at [Tenancy address suppressed] is owned by the company or that the house that is on it was purchased by the company separately, (the ownership of the garage is disputed), but arranged and lived in 1 by [The respondent/s]. It is also agreed that there was no arrangement for rent to be paid by [The respondent/s] whilst living there although she was to undertake some work on the house. It is also agreed that the rest of the property is a working farm.
[The applicant/s] now wish to sell the property with the house in situ and although [The respondent/s] has vacated, she does still have some belongings remaining there which they want removed. It was agreed as part of this hearing that her brother [name] is to remove those items and return them to her within the next fortnight. The property is currently under offer with a settlement date of 9 November 2023 at which point the purchaser is expecting vacant possession of it.

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

The Tribunal’s general jurisdiction, under s77(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) is to: “...determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that— (a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time.”
Section 2 RTA provides that a “landlord” and “tenant” are respectively grantor and grantee of a tenancy. “...tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment...” rent, means any money, goods, services, or other valuable consideration in the nature of rent to be paid or supplied under a tenancy agreement by the tenant; but does not include any sum of money payable or paid by way of bond”
Section 5 of the RTA details exclusions to the RTA. S5(n) specifically excludes arrangements where the premises are being used for residence by any member of the landlord’s family. The exclusion of family type arrangements recognises that, in a family context, the parties may well come to arrangements that are 1 Between February 2022 and May 2023 different from those entered by landlords and tenants negotiating at arms’ length and with a commercial focus. 2
The District Court in Adams v Massey University 3 held, to give effect to the RTA’s true intent and meaning, the exclusions in s 5 should be interpreted strictly and not liberally. If one party considers that the RTA applies and the other does not, the burden of proof is on the party seeking to rely on the apparent exemption. 4
Parties that would otherwise be excluded are entitled to contract into the RTA 5 in writing. Section 85(2) also provides that the Tribunal is to determine disputes “according to the general principles of the law ... and the substantial merits and justice of the case” but that it “shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities”.
As discussed at the hearing, I find that this arrangement is not one to which the RTA applies. I do not find that this was a tenancy as defined in s2 of the RTA and even if I did, I am satisfied that this arrangement is one that is excluded from the RTA by s5(n) RTA. I make this finding for the following reasons: i. On the basis of the evidence submitted, I consider that the arrangement was of a familial character, specifically created because the parties are blood relatives; it was not a commercial undertaking of a renting nature. ii. No rent was to be paid and there was no specific arrangement for services in lieu of rent. iii. [The applicant/s] say they allowed their daughter to live there to help her out. [The respondent/s] says she moved in to help them out on the farm. iv. [The respondent/s] did not have exclusive use of the property, although she did of the house. v. They did not contract into the RTA by forming a tenancy agreement, nor was there any discussion of a similar nature.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the arrangement the parties had was not a tenancy and is therefore excluded from the RTA. Accordingly, I have no jurisdiction to consider their dispute.
In saying that, agreement was reached between the parties regarding the return of [The respondent/s] belongings. 2 Smith v Hills [2020] NZHC 2293 High Court, Hamilton, 4/9/2020, CIV-2020-419-20, Andrew Associate Judge & Mexted v Mexted, Gray and Rusmussen [2021] NZTT Hamilton 4300218, 4297500 3 Adams v Massey University Palmerston North TT 43/94, 10 October 1994. 4 S10 RTA 5 Section 8 RTA
Given the sensitive nature of this situation, I direct that all party details are redacted from the published order 6 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 4674092 — Tenancy dispute at suppressed]

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4674092 — Tenancy dispute at suppressed]

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions