What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4712370 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 4712370?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4712370?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4712370?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9956125-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4712370 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 4712370?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4712370?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4712370?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9956125-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

suppressed] Tenancy Tribunal Case 4712370 — Cleanliness

Order

The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

[The applicant/s] lived in the home [The respondent/s] was renting for approximately a month towards the end of 2023. Difficulties arose during that tenure and as such she seeks relief.
The first issue to decide is jurisdiction. That is because the Tenancy Tribunal only has the jurisdiction to determine disputes between tenants and landlords, not those between flatmates or tenants and other tenants. [The applicant/s] considered [The respondent/s] her landlord and [The respondent/s] considered [The applicant/s] her flatmate.
I gave an oral decision at the hearing dismissing the claim on the basis that I considered the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over their relationship. This decision discusses my reasoning.

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

The Tribunal’s general jurisdiction, under s77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“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 (or grantor of the tenancy). Such a situation may be one where a tenant has flatmates to help them pay the rent or an owner rents out rooms in their home to cover expenses.
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. I therefore turn to the competing submissions of the parties.
[The applicant/s] considered this was a traditional landlord/tenant relationship as she was under the impression [The respondent/s] owned the home. Her further understanding was that the house was to be split into two separate units: one for [The respondent/s] and her son, the other for her and two other flatmates. She therefore considered that [The respondent/s] was renting out half the house as a separate unit to her own living space.
[The respondent/s] evidence is that she did initially intend on such an arrangement with an actual division between the sections of the house. However, before [The applicant/s] moved in, she changed that idea and decided to have the whole house function as one unit. She says she explained that to [The applicant/s] and it was on that basis upon which she accepted the room and moved in.
She provided evidence that she offered [The applicant/s] an agreement entitled “flatmate/house sharing agreement” and made it clear to [The applicant/s] that she was to be considered legally a flatmate and not a tenant (with [The respondent/s] as the landlord).
When [The applicant/s] moved in, [The respondent/s] was in the process of setting up the house as she had just moved in herself. Therefore, arrangements were fluid as things got established. There was still one room vacant, but two others were occupied. There were two living spaces and two kitchens however [The respondent/s] says neither was exclusively for particular people.
The two other occupants gave oral and written evidence at the hearing that they were always aware that they were flatmates and resided there on that basis. They explained how the property was run and that no one had an exclusive space.
Although there are two power metres the electricity bill covers both and the areas, they relate to are unclear. [The respondent/s] arranged the utilities and when the bills came in, they were divided equally between the occupants. There were fluid arrangements at that stage for house responsibilities such as cleaning but they involved everyone contributing to the communal spaces.
[The applicant/s] argues that [The respondent/s] and her son used separate entrances to the home, and she rarely saw them. She is clear that her understanding is that they lived quite separately.
The difficulty arises as the house is substantial and clearly had in the past functioned as two distinct homes. It is a corner section and has two street addresses: one from either adjoining street. However, at the time of this arrangement there was no clear delineation of the space, and the house was set up as one home.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, I am satisfied that this arrangement between [The respondent/s] and [The applicant/s] was one of a flatmate situation. [The respondent/s] paid the rent to the landlord and [The applicant/s] paid her contribution to her.
Primarily I have come to this finding for the following reasons: a. There was no clear delineation between the areas [The respondent/s] and her son utilised and the areas the others used. They all shared the hallway, back bathroom and laundry area. b. None of the areas could be locked off from one another. Although they used separate entrances, there was nothing to prevent anyone accessing any other area and no areas were specifically designated. c. Utilities and responsibilities were shared equally between everyone living there. d. [The respondent/s] offered [The applicant/s] a flatmate agreement prior to moving in and they had a clear discussion regarding [The respondent/s] intention for the arrangement. [The respondent/s] explained to [The applicant/s] before she moved in that she would lawfully be a “flatmate” as opposed to a tenant and she would retain overall responsibility for the home.
Therefore, this application must be dismissed. As such an arrangement is excluded by the RTA, any disputes arising from this relationship should be determined in the more appropriate jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal. Therefore, if [The applicant/s] wishes to progress her claims, she would need to file an application in 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 application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

[The applicant/s] lived in the home [The respondent/s] was renting for approximately a month towards the end of 2023. Difficulties arose during that tenure and as such she seeks relief.
The first issue to decide is jurisdiction. That is because the Tenancy Tribunal only has the jurisdiction to determine disputes between tenants and landlords, not those between flatmates or tenants and other tenants. [The applicant/s] considered [The respondent/s] her landlord and [The respondent/s] considered [The applicant/s] her flatmate.
I gave an oral decision at the hearing dismissing the claim on the basis that I considered the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over their relationship. This decision discusses my reasoning.

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

The Tribunal’s general jurisdiction, under s77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“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 (or grantor of the tenancy). Such a situation may be one where a tenant has flatmates to help them pay the rent or an owner rents out rooms in their home to cover expenses.
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. I therefore turn to the competing submissions of the parties.
[The applicant/s] considered this was a traditional landlord/tenant relationship as she was under the impression [The respondent/s] owned the home. Her further understanding was that the house was to be split into two separate units: one for [The respondent/s] and her son, the other for her and two other flatmates. She therefore considered that [The respondent/s] was renting out half the house as a separate unit to her own living space.
[The respondent/s] evidence is that she did initially intend on such an arrangement with an actual division between the sections of the house. However, before [The applicant/s] moved in, she changed that idea and decided to have the whole house function as one unit. She says she explained that to [The applicant/s] and it was on that basis upon which she accepted the room and moved in.
She provided evidence that she offered [The applicant/s] an agreement entitled “flatmate/house sharing agreement” and made it clear to [The applicant/s] that she was to be considered legally a flatmate and not a tenant (with [The respondent/s] as the landlord).
When [The applicant/s] moved in, [The respondent/s] was in the process of setting up the house as she had just moved in herself. Therefore, arrangements were fluid as things got established. There was still one room vacant, but two others were occupied. There were two living spaces and two kitchens however [The respondent/s] says neither was exclusively for particular people.
The two other occupants gave oral and written evidence at the hearing that they were always aware that they were flatmates and resided there on that basis. They explained how the property was run and that no one had an exclusive space.
Although there are two power metres the electricity bill covers both and the areas, they relate to are unclear. [The respondent/s] arranged the utilities and when the bills came in, they were divided equally between the occupants. There were fluid arrangements at that stage for house responsibilities such as cleaning but they involved everyone contributing to the communal spaces.
[The applicant/s] argues that [The respondent/s] and her son used separate entrances to the home, and she rarely saw them. She is clear that her understanding is that they lived quite separately.
The difficulty arises as the house is substantial and clearly had in the past functioned as two distinct homes. It is a corner section and has two street addresses: one from either adjoining street. However, at the time of this arrangement there was no clear delineation of the space, and the house was set up as one home.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, I am satisfied that this arrangement between [The respondent/s] and [The applicant/s] was one of a flatmate situation. [The respondent/s] paid the rent to the landlord and [The applicant/s] paid her contribution to her.
Primarily I have come to this finding for the following reasons: a. There was no clear delineation between the areas [The respondent/s] and her son utilised and the areas the others used. They all shared the hallway, back bathroom and laundry area. b. None of the areas could be locked off from one another. Although they used separate entrances, there was nothing to prevent anyone accessing any other area and no areas were specifically designated. c. Utilities and responsibilities were shared equally between everyone living there. d. [The respondent/s] offered [The applicant/s] a flatmate agreement prior to moving in and they had a clear discussion regarding [The respondent/s] intention for the arrangement. [The respondent/s] explained to [The applicant/s] before she moved in that she would lawfully be a “flatmate” as opposed to a tenant and she would retain overall responsibility for the home.
Therefore, this application must be dismissed. As such an arrangement is excluded by the RTA, any disputes arising from this relationship should be determined in the more appropriate jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal. Therefore, if [The applicant/s] wishes to progress her claims, she would need to file an application in 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 4712370 — Cleanliness at suppressed]

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4712370 — Cleanliness at suppressed]

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions