What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4697676 about?

The tribunal order states: Both parties’ names along with the identifying details and the tenancy address are

How much money was awarded in case 4697676?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4697676?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4697676?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9647753-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4697676 about?

The tribunal order states: Both parties’ names along with the identifying details and the tenancy address are

How much money was awarded in case 4697676?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4697676?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4697676?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9647753-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4697676 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Both parties’ names along with the identifying details and the tenancy address are suppressed.
The Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear and consider the application and the matter is struck out.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference.
Nicola Treadwell seeks the return of her bond of $850.00 paid to Joanna McDonald.
There is a preliminary issue as to whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim. This needs to resolved before any substantive claim is determined.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute between a landlord and a tenant, and/or a guarantor of a tenant, that relates to a residential tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies (see section 77, RTA). 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 tenant and the respondent a landlord, or whether the parties are flatmates.
On or around 11 October 2022, Joanna McDonald signed and commenced a residential tenancy agreement which names her as tenant at this address. There is a separate landlord under that tenancy agreement.
Later, the respondent signed a Flat/house sharing agreement with the applicant on 25 February 2023 which records the respondent as the head tenant and the tenant as a flatmate. A bond of $850.00 was taken. The existence of the landlord and the respondent’s tenant status was known to the applicant. That landlord would conduct routine inspections and was aware of the applicant’s occupancy as a flatmate.
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.
Here the respondent is the grantee or tenant of the tenancy under the tenancy agreement of 11 October 2022. She is not the grantor or landlord of the tenancy. The written flat/house sharing agreement establishes that it was always intended that the applicant was a flatmate of the respondent. For the respondent to be a tenant the landlord would have had to agree to that change to the tenancy agreement. There is no evidence that this is the case.
I am satisfied that the arrangement between the parties is not a tenancy agreement but a flatting arrangement. Therefore, the Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to determine the claim.
The application is struck out. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The applicant did not seek suppression in her application.
I believe the applicant was confused about the appropriate jurisdiction due to it being the bond in dispute. Given the matter needs to be concluded via the Disputes Tribunal, and its orders are not public, I have exercised my initiative to suppress all of the parties’ details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference.

Nicola Treadwell seeks the return of her bond of $850.00 paid to Joanna McDonald.

There is a preliminary issue as to whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim. This needs to resolved before any substantive claim is determined.

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

On or around 11 October 2022, Joanna McDonald signed and commenced a residential tenancy agreement which names her as tenant at this address. There is a separate landlord under that tenancy agreement.

Later, the respondent signed a Flat/house sharing agreement with the applicant on 25 February 2023 which records the respondent as the head tenant and the tenant as a flatmate. A bond of $850.00 was taken. The existence of the landlord and the respondent’s tenant status was known to the applicant. That landlord would conduct routine inspections and was aware of the applicant’s occupancy as a flatmate.

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.

Here the respondent is the grantee or tenant of the tenancy under the tenancy agreement of 11 October 2022. She is not the grantor or landlord of the tenancy. The written flat/house sharing agreement establishes that it was always intended that the applicant was a flatmate of the respondent. For the respondent to be a tenant the landlord would have had to agree to that change to the tenancy agreement. There is no evidence that this is the case.

I am satisfied that the arrangement between the parties is not a tenancy agreement but a flatting arrangement. Therefore, the Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to determine the claim.

The application is struck out. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

The applicant did not seek suppression in her application.

I believe the applicant was confused about the appropriate jurisdiction due to it being the bond in dispute. Given the matter needs to be concluded via the Disputes Tribunal, and its orders are not public, I have exercised my initiative to suppress all of the parties’ details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4697676 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4697676 — 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