What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4707651 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed. The Tenancy Tribunal does not have

How much money was awarded in case 4707651?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4707651?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4707651?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9725346-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4707651 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed. The Tenancy Tribunal does not have

How much money was awarded in case 4707651?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4707651?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4707651?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9725346-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room 5, 224 Green Lane West, Epsom, Auckland 1051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4707651 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed. The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear these claims.
I order suppression of the landlord’s name.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by remote teleconference.
The tenant claims that the landlord has not returned the bond he paid at the start of the tenancy. He also claims that the room was uninhabitable and has filed photographic evidence in support of this claim.
The landlord filed a cross application opposing the tenant’s claims. He says that the accommodation is emergency and transitional and therefore the Residential Tenancies Act does not apply.
The tenant moved into the motel on 29 September 2023. The tenant says that he only intended to stay for approximately one week. He had moved from Waiheke Island and needed a short-term place to stay. Prior to that he had slept in his car for a week.
The landlord had the tenant sign a Tenancy Agreement. The agreement confirmed the rent amount payable. There was also payment of a bond amount recorded within the Agreement.
The landlord advised that there is a minimum stay of two weeks.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that he only provides emergency accommodation of a transitional nature. In most cases he says that Work and Income New Zealand (“WINZ”) pay the bond and rent. In this case WINZ paid the bond. The tenant paid the rent out of his own funds. The landlord stated that he is required to return a bond payment to WINZ when a tenant moves out. This is an established process with WINZ.
The payment of the bond by WINZ is a loan. The tenant says that he has repaid that loan in full to WINZ. The tenant simply wants his bond money returned so that he can get through Christmas. The landlord confirmed that he is still holding the bond money which will be returned to WINZ as soon as this application is decided.
I must assess whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claims.
The tenant said that he was homeless prior to his stay at the motel and he was staying there on a temporary basis. He was also receiving assistance from WINZ to partly fund his stay. This was in the form of a bond payment.
The landlord gave evidence during the hearing confirming that the motel provides emergency accommodation for those who require emergency or transitional accommodation.
I refer to section 5(1)(y) (Act excluded in certain cases) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 in respect of emergency or transitional accommodation. After hearing the circumstances, I find that there is no jurisdiction for the Tenancy Tribunal to hear the tenant’s claim.
Accordingly the application is struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
The landlord is still holding bond money. He says that this needs to be returned to WINZ. I have no control over the process or arrangement between WINZ and the accommodation provider. That being said the bond money of $2,000.00 should now be returned to either the tenant or WINZ without any further delay.
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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful.
It is also my view that the parties should absorb their respective filing fees.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by remote teleconference.

The tenant claims that the landlord has not returned the bond he paid at the start of the tenancy. He also claims that the room was uninhabitable and has filed photographic evidence in support of this claim.

The landlord filed a cross application opposing the tenant’s claims. He says that the accommodation is emergency and transitional and therefore the Residential Tenancies Act does not apply.

The tenant moved into the motel on 29 September 2023. The tenant says that he only intended to stay for approximately one week. He had moved from Waiheke Island and needed a short-term place to stay. Prior to that he had slept in his car for a week.

The landlord had the tenant sign a Tenancy Agreement. The agreement confirmed the rent amount payable. There was also payment of a bond amount recorded within the Agreement.

The landlord advised that there is a minimum stay of two weeks.

The landlord confirmed during the hearing that he only provides emergency accommodation of a transitional nature. In most cases he says that Work and Income New Zealand (“WINZ”) pay the bond and rent. In this case WINZ paid the bond. The tenant paid the rent out of his own funds. The landlord stated that he is required to return a bond payment to WINZ when a tenant moves out. This is an established process with WINZ.

The payment of the bond by WINZ is a loan. The tenant says that he has repaid that loan in full to WINZ. The tenant simply wants his bond money returned so that he can get through Christmas. The landlord confirmed that he is still holding the bond money which will be returned to WINZ as soon as this application is decided.

I must assess whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claims.

The tenant said that he was homeless prior to his stay at the motel and he was staying there on a temporary basis. He was also receiving assistance from WINZ to partly fund his stay. This was in the form of a bond payment.

The landlord gave evidence during the hearing confirming that the motel provides emergency accommodation for those who require emergency or transitional accommodation.

I refer to section 5(1)(y) (Act excluded in certain cases) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 in respect of emergency or transitional accommodation. After hearing the circumstances, I find that there is no jurisdiction for the Tenancy Tribunal to hear the tenant’s claim.

Accordingly the application is struck out for lack of jurisdiction.

The landlord is still holding bond money. He says that this needs to be returned to WINZ. I have no control over the process or arrangement between WINZ and the accommodation provider. That being said the bond money of $2,000.00 should now be returned to either the tenant or WINZ without any further delay.

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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act

The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful.

It is also my view that the parties should absorb their respective filing fees.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4707651 — Tenancy dispute at Room 5, 224 Green Lane West, Epsom, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4707651 — Tenancy dispute at Room 5, 224 Green Lane West, Epsom, Auckland 1051

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