What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4697433 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4697433?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4697433?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4697433?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9777000-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4697433 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4697433?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4697433?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4697433?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9777000-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4697433 — Boarding House

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
By way of declaration, the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the relationship or agreement between the parties.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. [The applicant/s] has applied to the Tribunal because the issue of jurisdiction over her claim is unclear. She initially applied to the Disputes Tribunal, however the referee adjourned those proceedings on 7 September to allow [The applicant/s] to file this claim. This is because, as the referee rightly pointed out, the Tenancy Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether the agreement the parties had is covered by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Background
[The applicant/s] resided at the property between October 2021 and June 2023. She rented a room from [The respondent/s] and the parties had an agreement entitled “House Agreement for a Room”. There were three other flatmates who had similar agreements. [The respondent/s] has a tenancy agreement with a property management company. Pursuant to that agreement he is entitled to have flatmates but is not entitled to sublet or run a boarding house.
[The respondent/s] is clear this was a flatmate arrangement. He has provided emails from two other flatmates who confirm they live there in a flatting situation whereby everyone shares facilities and costs. He says he was clear with [The applicant/s] from the outset that this was the nature of the arrangement.
[The applicant/s] says she was under the impression that this was a landlord/tenant arrangement because [The respondent/s] was so professional in his documentation and arrangements. He asked for her identification, took her bond and was directive about what she could and could not do. The law
The Tribunal’s general jurisdiction, under s77(1) of the 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 the landlord. Such a situation may be one where a tenant has flatmates to help them pay the rent.
In the District Court decision of Musson v Dobrisek, Catley and Low (CIV 2006- 032-36, Judge Broadmore stated, while excluding flatmate relationships from being under the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal, that “...the use of the word “flatmate” does not in itself define the nature of the legal relationship between a flatmate and any landlord”....By "flatmates" I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, all occupants are on the same footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens."
Accordingly, The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear disputes between tenants and flat mates, only between tenants and landlords. Findings
Having considered the submissions of the parties, I am satisfied that this arrangement between [The applicant/s] and [The respondent/s] was one of a flatmate situation. All residents shared the facilities but had the use of their own separate rooms. Jobs and costs were shared, and they all were clear on the arrangement. [The respondent/s] remains responsible to the property management company for the house and they to him for their obligations under the RTA.
Accordingly, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this dispute and it should continue through the Disputes Tribunal. Suppression
Given that neither party was clearly aware of the issues as to jurisdiction, it is not proportionate that their names be published. Accordingly, pursuant to s95A of the RTA, I direct that both party details be suppressed.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
By way of declaration, the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the relationship or agreement between the parties.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. [The applicant/s] has applied to the Tribunal because the issue of jurisdiction over her claim is unclear. She initially applied to the Disputes Tribunal, however the referee adjourned those proceedings on 7 September to allow [The applicant/s] to file this claim. This is because, as the referee rightly pointed out, the Tenancy Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether the agreement the parties had is covered by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Background
[The applicant/s] resided at the property between October 2021 and June 2023. She rented a room from [The respondent/s] and the parties had an agreement entitled “House Agreement for a Room”. There were three other flatmates who had similar agreements. [The respondent/s] has a tenancy agreement with a property management company. Pursuant to that agreement he is entitled to have flatmates but is not entitled to sublet or run a boarding house.
[The respondent/s] is clear this was a flatmate arrangement. He has provided emails from two other flatmates who confirm they live there in a flatting situation whereby everyone shares facilities and costs. He says he was clear with [The applicant/s] from the outset that this was the nature of the arrangement.
[The applicant/s] says she was under the impression that this was a landlord/tenant arrangement because [The respondent/s] was so professional in his documentation and arrangements. He asked for her identification, took her bond and was directive about what she could and could not do. The law
The Tribunal’s general jurisdiction, under s77(1) of the 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 the landlord. Such a situation may be one where a tenant has flatmates to help them pay the rent.
In the District Court decision of Musson v Dobrisek, Catley and Low (CIV 2006- 032-36, Judge Broadmore stated, while excluding flatmate relationships from being under the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal, that “...the use of the word “flatmate” does not in itself define the nature of the legal relationship between a flatmate and any landlord”....By "flatmates" I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, all occupants are on the same footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens."
Accordingly, The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear disputes between tenants and flat mates, only between tenants and landlords. Findings
Having considered the submissions of the parties, I am satisfied that this arrangement between [The applicant/s] and [The respondent/s] was one of a flatmate situation. All residents shared the facilities but had the use of their own separate rooms. Jobs and costs were shared, and they all were clear on the arrangement. [The respondent/s] remains responsible to the property management company for the house and they to him for their obligations under the RTA.
Accordingly, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this dispute and it should continue through the Disputes Tribunal. Suppression
Given that neither party was clearly aware of the issues as to jurisdiction, it is not proportionate that their names be published. Accordingly, pursuant to s95A of the RTA, I direct that both party details be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4697433 — Boarding House

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4697433 — Boarding House

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