What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4706149 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to

How much money was awarded in case 4706149?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4706149?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4706149?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9636143-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4706149 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to

How much money was awarded in case 4706149?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4706149?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4706149?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9636143-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4706149 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the application.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote teleconference hearing on 13 November 2023.
For the purposes of this decision, I propose referring to the parties as owner [The owner/s] and occupier (Ms Hancock).
This hearing was set down to consider the issue of jurisdiction only. The Tribunal has the jurisdiction or power to hear disputes between landlords and tenants. It does not have jurisdiction to hear claims involving boarders or flatmates.
Where, in any proceedings before the Tribunal, any party contends that the Act does not apply in respect of any tenancy of any residential premises, it shall be for that party to establish the facts upon which it is contended that the Act does not apply (see s.10 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
That means that the job of proving that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction is with the owner. The owner must prove that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to the civil standard called the “balance of probabilities” The point where I accept that it is more likely than not that their version of events is correct. In crude mathematical terms, this might be described as meaning that the party whose claim has a probability threshold of 51% will meet the standard of proof. If they only reach 50% or less, then as a matter of law their claim must fail.
The issue of jurisdiction is an important one. If I find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter, then the matter cannot proceed further in the Tribunal. The parties would need to file their respective claims in another jurisdiction, usually the Disputes Tribunal.
The Tribunal is not required to set out all of the evidence proffered by the parties at the hearing, but they can be assured that it has been taken into account in reaching this decision.
The RTA does not apply to premises that continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or owner of the premises, or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family. (See s 5(1)(n) RTA).
The test to be applied under s 5(1)(n) RTA is not whether the premises are the principal place of residence of the landlord or owner (or the landlord’s or owner’s family) but instead turns on the principal use of the premises during the tenancy. In order for the exclusion to apply, the premises must continue to be used predominantly as a residence by the landlord or owner or their family.
It has been held by the District Court that in order to give effect to the Act’s true intent and meaning, the exemptions in section 5 RTA should be interpreted strictly and not liberally.
The issue that I must determine is whether the relationship between the parties was a tenancy or a boarding arrangement with the premises shared with the landlord. If it is the later, then the exclusion in s.5(1)(n) RTA will apply.
In reaching my finding, I consider the following to be relevant; o The occupier application to the Tribunal refers to the occupier being a boarder. o The occupier in evidence considered herself to be a boarder. o The arrangement commenced on 7 July 2023. With the exception of a 5 week period when the owner was in [Country], the owner resided in the premises at all times. o The occupier had exclusive use of her bedroom and shared use of a bathroom, kitchen, dining room, laundry and lounge along with the landlord. There were no other residents. o Both parties had access to the main entrance of the premises with a key. o No rent has been paid by the occupier.
Taking all of those factors into account, I have no difficulty in finding that this arrangement was a boarding arrangement and that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the matter. The application by the occupier is dismissed.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The occupier has not been wholly or substantially successful and the application for name suppression by the occupier is dismissed. The owner has been wholly substantial and the Tribunal orders suppression of the owner details.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote teleconference hearing on 13 November 2023.

For the purposes of this decision, I propose referring to the parties as owner [The owner/s] and occupier (Ms Hancock).

This hearing was set down to consider the issue of jurisdiction only. The Tribunal has the jurisdiction or power to hear disputes between landlords and tenants. It does not have jurisdiction to hear claims involving boarders or flatmates.

Where, in any proceedings before the Tribunal, any party contends that the Act does not apply in respect of any tenancy of any residential premises, it shall be for that party to establish the facts upon which it is contended that the Act does not apply (see s.10 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

That means that the job of proving that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction is with the owner. The owner must prove that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to the civil standard called the “balance of probabilities” The point where I accept that it is more likely than not that their version of events is correct. In crude mathematical terms, this might be described as meaning that the party whose claim has a probability threshold of 51% will meet the standard of proof. If they only reach 50% or less, then as a matter of law their claim must fail.

The issue of jurisdiction is an important one. If I find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter, then the matter cannot proceed further in the Tribunal. The parties would need to file their respective claims in another jurisdiction, usually the Disputes Tribunal.

The Tribunal is not required to set out all of the evidence proffered by the parties at the hearing, but they can be assured that it has been taken into account in reaching this decision.

The RTA does not apply to premises that continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or owner of the premises, or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family. (See s 5(1)(n) RTA).

The test to be applied under s 5(1)(n) RTA is not whether the premises are the principal place of residence of the landlord or owner (or the landlord’s or owner’s family) but instead turns on the principal use of the premises during the tenancy. In order for the exclusion to apply, the premises must continue to be used predominantly as a residence by the landlord or owner or their family.

It has been held by the District Court that in order to give effect to the Act’s true intent and meaning, the exemptions in section 5 RTA should be interpreted strictly and not liberally.

The issue that I must determine is whether the relationship between the parties was a tenancy or a boarding arrangement with the premises shared with the landlord. If it is the later, then the exclusion in s.5(1)(n) RTA will apply.

In reaching my finding, I consider the following to be relevant; o The occupier application to the Tribunal refers to the occupier being a boarder. o The occupier in evidence considered herself to be a boarder. o The arrangement commenced on 7 July 2023. With the exception of a 5 week period when the owner was in [Country], the owner resided in the premises at all times. o The occupier had exclusive use of her bedroom and shared use of a bathroom, kitchen, dining room, laundry and lounge along with the landlord. There were no other residents. o Both parties had access to the main entrance of the premises with a key. o No rent has been paid by the occupier.

Taking all of those factors into account, I have no difficulty in finding that this arrangement was a boarding arrangement and that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the matter. The application by the occupier is dismissed.

Both parties applied for name suppression. The occupier has not been wholly or substantially successful and the application for name suppression by the occupier is dismissed. The owner has been wholly substantial and the Tribunal orders suppression of the owner details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4706149 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4706149 — 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