What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4694849 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 4694849?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4694849?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4694849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9600642-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4694849 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 4694849?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4694849?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4694849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9600642-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4694849 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by teleconference.
The applicant applied for exemplary damages and compensation for breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The matter was set down today to consider whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine this claim.
The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute that exists between a landlord and a tenant and relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies. See section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In determining whether the parties were in a landlord/tenant relationship there is a need to look at the nature of the relationship and the agreement between the parties.
[The landlord/s] and her husband are the owners of a commercial premises that has a two-bedroom townhouse above. The address differs from the address provided by the tenant as the property is on a corner and the access to the town house is on a different road from the legal address.
[The tenant/s] was looking for accommodation and said she posted on a facebook page looking for a granny flat or house sharing arrangement. The exact wording of the post was not provided.
[The landlord/s] answered the advertisement saying “I saw your post for a room... I might have a suitable place in [Suburb] it’s a 2 beddy XL flat that is empty ATM”. The tenant responded that she was interested, and the parties entered into further communication where [The landlord/s] stated, “it will just be yourself and us so like a flatmate that’s hardly there(us)” and the tenant replied “No worries at all that sounds great. I’ll sort out the bond soon. I would only have friends and family (and you guys) over sometimes”.
It was agreed that the owners did not live at the premises but were sharing the use of it. [The landlord/s] was using the second bedroom for her heat pressing business and [The tenant/s] also wished to run a business from the premises. The parties gave conflicting evidence about the terms of the sharing that had been agreed.
No written agreement was signed. No bond was paid.
[The tenant/s] stated that she requested an agreement but was told this was not necessary. [The landlord/s] stated she understood an agreement was not necessary as it was a flat sharing arrangement.
The owners paid the power and water and the amount paid by [The tenant/s] was $350 per week. The owner claimed that this was an amount for the one bedroom and sharing facilities and if this was a tenancy for the whole premises a greater rent would have been charged.
[The tenant/s] became unhappy with the amount of use of the premises by the owners which was more than she had understood to be agreed. The owners disputed this. [The tenant/s] stated that she did not communicate her concerns with the owners as she felt uncomfortable.
On 9 September 2023 [The tenant/s] moved out of the premises on two days’ notice. Three weeks later she filed proceedings.
The Tribunal has considered the evidence of the relationship between the parties in this case including how this arrangement commenced, the lack of written agreement and bond, the process for paying utilities at the premises, the evidence of shared use provided by both parties and the ending of the arrangement on short notice. I find on the balance of probabilities that the nature of the relationship between the parties was a house sharing arrangement between the owners and [The tenant/s]. Accordingly, the application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The parties had a discussion at the end of the hearing and [The landlord/s] offered financial reimbursement to [The tenant/s] for her moving costs and the cost of a letterbox. The parties agreed to communicate after the hearing to resolve these matters between themselves.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The applicant has applied for suppression. Although the applicant has not been successful the Tribunal has considered the factors in this case including the good will between the parties and considers that the interests of the parties outweigh any public interest in identifying details being published. Suppression is granted as sought.

Order

The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by teleconference.
The applicant applied for exemplary damages and compensation for breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The matter was set down today to consider whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine this claim.
The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute that exists between a landlord and a tenant and relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies. See section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In determining whether the parties were in a landlord/tenant relationship there is a need to look at the nature of the relationship and the agreement between the parties.
[The landlord/s] and her husband are the owners of a commercial premises that has a two-bedroom townhouse above. The address differs from the address provided by the tenant as the property is on a corner and the access to the town house is on a different road from the legal address.
[The tenant/s] was looking for accommodation and said she posted on a facebook page looking for a granny flat or house sharing arrangement. The exact wording of the post was not provided.
[The landlord/s] answered the advertisement saying “I saw your post for a room... I might have a suitable place in [Suburb] it’s a 2 beddy XL flat that is empty ATM”. The tenant responded that she was interested, and the parties entered into further communication where [The landlord/s] stated, “it will just be yourself and us so like a flatmate that’s hardly there(us)” and the tenant replied “No worries at all that sounds great. I’ll sort out the bond soon. I would only have friends and family (and you guys) over sometimes”.
It was agreed that the owners did not live at the premises but were sharing the use of it. [The landlord/s] was using the second bedroom for her heat pressing business and [The tenant/s] also wished to run a business from the premises. The parties gave conflicting evidence about the terms of the sharing that had been agreed.
No written agreement was signed. No bond was paid.
[The tenant/s] stated that she requested an agreement but was told this was not necessary. [The landlord/s] stated she understood an agreement was not necessary as it was a flat sharing arrangement.
The owners paid the power and water and the amount paid by [The tenant/s] was $350 per week. The owner claimed that this was an amount for the one bedroom and sharing facilities and if this was a tenancy for the whole premises a greater rent would have been charged.
[The tenant/s] became unhappy with the amount of use of the premises by the owners which was more than she had understood to be agreed. The owners disputed this. [The tenant/s] stated that she did not communicate her concerns with the owners as she felt uncomfortable.
On 9 September 2023 [The tenant/s] moved out of the premises on two days’ notice. Three weeks later she filed proceedings.
The Tribunal has considered the evidence of the relationship between the parties in this case including how this arrangement commenced, the lack of written agreement and bond, the process for paying utilities at the premises, the evidence of shared use provided by both parties and the ending of the arrangement on short notice. I find on the balance of probabilities that the nature of the relationship between the parties was a house sharing arrangement between the owners and [The tenant/s]. Accordingly, the application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The parties had a discussion at the end of the hearing and [The landlord/s] offered financial reimbursement to [The tenant/s] for her moving costs and the cost of a letterbox. The parties agreed to communicate after the hearing to resolve these matters between themselves.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The applicant has applied for suppression. Although the applicant has not been successful the Tribunal has considered the factors in this case including the good will between the parties and considers that the interests of the parties outweigh any public interest in identifying details being published. Suppression is granted as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4694849 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4694849 — Exemplary damages

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