What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4687399 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear and consider the application.

How much money was awarded in case 4687399?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4687399?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4687399?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9728086-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4687399 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear and consider the application.

How much money was awarded in case 4687399?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4687399?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4687399?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9728086-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4687399 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear and consider the application. The application is struck out.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant claims arrears of weekly payments due of $400.00 from the respondent for rent, food, electricity, gas and internet.
However there is a preliminary issue as to whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s claim, which needs to be resolved before the substantive claim for arrears can be determined.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute between a landlord and a tenant that relates to a residential tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies 1 . 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 landlord and the respondent is a tenant, or whether the parties are flatmates. 1 see section 77, RTA
On 22 April 2023 the applicant and the respondent signed a flat/house sharing agreement under which the respondent was to pay $400.00 a week for rent, food, electricity, gas and internet. Separately the applicant has a tenancy agreement with the landlord to rent the property. He has permission for the landlord to be able to have others (flatmates) living at the premises.
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.
I am satisfied from the evidence presented by the parties including the written flat/house sharing agreement that it was never intended that the respondent was a tenant of the applicant’s but was always intended that the respondent was a flatmate.
Therefore I am satisfied that the arrangement between the parties is not that of a tenancy agreement under the Residential Tenancies Act but a flatting arrangement. Therefore the Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to determine the applicant’s claim.
The application is struck out. This does not prevent the applicant from filing a claim in the Disputes Tribunal which is the correct tribunal to hear and determine this matter.
Suppression: After considering the interests of the parties and the public interest, I suppress the names of the applicant and the respondent and all identifying details (section 95A(4), RTA). The applicant has not understood the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal in filing this claim, and incorrectly believed the dispute relating to their flatting arrangement could be considered in this forum.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The applicant claims arrears of weekly payments due of $400.00 from the respondent for rent, food, electricity, gas and internet.

However there is a preliminary issue as to whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s claim, which needs to be resolved before the substantive claim for arrears can be determined.

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute between a landlord and a tenant that relates to a residential tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies 1 . 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 landlord and the respondent is a tenant, or whether the parties are flatmates. 1 see section 77, RTA

On 22 April 2023 the applicant and the respondent signed a flat/house sharing agreement under which the respondent was to pay $400.00 a week for rent, food, electricity, gas and internet. Separately the applicant has a tenancy agreement with the landlord to rent the property. He has permission for the landlord to be able to have others (flatmates) living at the premises.

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.

I am satisfied from the evidence presented by the parties including the written flat/house sharing agreement that it was never intended that the respondent was a tenant of the applicant’s but was always intended that the respondent was a flatmate.

Therefore I am satisfied that the arrangement between the parties is not that of a tenancy agreement under the Residential Tenancies Act but a flatting arrangement. Therefore the Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to determine the applicant’s claim.

The application is struck out. This does not prevent the applicant from filing a claim in the Disputes Tribunal which is the correct tribunal to hear and determine this matter.

Suppression: After considering the interests of the parties and the public interest, I suppress the names of the applicant and the respondent and all identifying details (section 95A(4), RTA). The applicant has not understood the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal in filing this claim, and incorrectly believed the dispute relating to their flatting arrangement could be considered in this forum.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4687399 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4687399 — 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