What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4710993?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction and the application is accordingly

How much money was awarded in case 4710993?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4710993?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4710993?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10131715-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4710993?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction and the application is accordingly

How much money was awarded in case 4710993?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4710993?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4710993?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10131715-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 611, 430 Queen Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4710993 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Jiang. The Tenant was represented by Ms Bidois.

The landlord seeks compensation for alleged damage (including methamphetamine contamination).

The landlord’s application raises a jurisdictional issue which I raised with the parties at the start of the hearing.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Section 5 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out the circumstances where the Act does not apply. Section 5(1)(s) states as follows:

“Social housing” is defined in section 5(2) as housing for persons on low incomes, or persons with special needs, or persons whose disabilities mean that they need support or supervisions in their housing.

Therefore, where a tenancy agreement is entered into for a tenant to sublet the premises for social housing, and the other requirements in section 5(1)(s)(ii) and (iii) are met, the tenancy will be excluded from the provisions of the RTA and the Tribunal will not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

In this case the agreement between the parties comes within section 5(1)(s) as the agreement was entered into to enable Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited to sublet the premises to provide social housing.

While the tenancy agreement between the parties may be excluded under section 5, section 8 allows the parties to contract back into the RTA. Section 8 of the RTA provides as follows:

An express provision is required before the Tribunal will find that the parties have contracted back into the RTA (see for example Sunrise Property Management and Services Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2022] NZTT Waitakere 4312386, AI Homes Real Estate Limited as agent for Jin Wang v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Manukau 4322019, Petrus and Blommestijn v Visionwest Community Trust Inc [2020] NZTT Waitakere 4245116).

I note that the Blommestijn decision contains a useful discussion on the policy reasons for the exclusion in section 5(1)(s).

I reviewed the agreement between the parties during the hearing and was unable to find any express provision sufficient to indicate that the parties have contracted back into the RTA pursuant to section 8 RTA. I asked the representatives of both parties whether they could point to any such provision in the agreement and both representatives agreed that there was no such provision in the agreement.

I find that the tenancy agreement between the parties is an excluded tenancy pursuant to section 5(1)(s) RTA and that the parties have not contracted back into the RTA pursuant to section 8 RTA.

Accordingly, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter and I must dismiss the application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Jiang. The Tenant was represented by Ms Bidois.

The landlord seeks compensation for alleged damage (including methamphetamine contamination).

The landlord’s application raises a jurisdictional issue which I raised with the parties at the start of the hearing.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Section 5 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out the circumstances where the Act does not apply. Section 5(1)(s) states as follows:

In this case the agreement between the parties comes within section 5(1)(s) as the agreement was entered into to enable Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited to sublet the premises to provide social housing.

While the tenancy agreement between the parties may be excluded under section 5, section 8 allows the parties to contract back into the RTA. Section 8 of the RTA provides as follows:

I note that the Blommestijn decision contains a useful discussion on the policy reasons for the exclusion in section 5(1)(s).

I find that the tenancy agreement between the parties is an excluded tenancy pursuant to section 5(1)(s) RTA and that the parties have not contracted back into the RTA pursuant to section 8 RTA.

Accordingly, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter and I must dismiss the application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4710993 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 611, 430 Queen Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4710993 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 611, 430 Queen Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions