What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4722116 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4722116?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4722116?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4722116?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9755808-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4722116 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4722116?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4722116?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4722116?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9755808-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4722116 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
By way of declaration, it is noted that the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the relationship or agreement between the parties.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by teleconference.
[The flatmate] applied for refund of a bond she paid to [The tenant]. The issue of whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim arose.
[The tenant] is the sole tenant of the property in a Tenancy Agreement with the landlord of the property, formerly known as [Tenancy address suppressed]. [The tenant] said the apartment building is a brand-new complex and her apartment was initially assigned as [address]. After 3-4 months, [The tenant] said she received notice that the flat number had been changed to [address].
[The tenant] said she searched for a flatmate and that [The flatmate] applied to live at the property. Both parties agreed that when [The flatmate] was accepted to live with [The tenant] at the property, [The tenant] asked her if she wanted to be a tenant or a flatmate, and that [The flatmate] said that, as she did not intend to stay long, she would be a flatmate.
The parties signed a Housing Sharing Agreement dated 4 January 2023, which provided that [The flatmate] was a flatmate, [The tenant] was the head tenant, that [The flatmate] would pay $250.00 per week in rent and an additional $50.00 per week towards joint bills such as power, water, internet, and that each party would clean up after themselves in their own areas and would clean up common areas, such as the kitchen, after themselves. There were further agreements about respecting the privacy and peace of other flatmates. [The flatmate] paid $950.00 to [The tenant] for a bond. [The tenant] said she retained this bond until [The flatmate] moved out and did not try to lodge it with the Tenancy Services Bond Centre.
[The flatmate] confirmed that she had her own bedroom and bathroom, that [The tenant] had her own bedroom with an ensuite bathroom, and they both had use of the living area, kitchen, balcony and laundry area. [The tenant] said she agreed to clean the common areas so that [The flatmate] only had to clean her own bedroom and bathroom.
The Housing Sharing Agreement provided, amongst other things, that [The tenant] would notify [The flatmate] if [The tenant] received any notices from the landlord, of inspections or otherwise.
The dispute between the parties arose when [The flatmate] moved out and said she had left her bedroom and bathroom clean and tidy, but [The tenant] only paid her all but $120.00 of the $950.00 bond back. [The tenant] disputed that [The flatmate]’ bedroom and bathroom were left clean and said she had to engage a cleaner who charged her $120.00 to clean these areas.

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

The Tribunal’s general jurisdiction, under s77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). s 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...” Landlord, means, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement....” 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. Section 5(1)(n) specifically excludes arrangements where the premises are being used for residence by the landlord. Such a situation may be one where a tenant has flatmates to help them pay the rent.
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 flatmates, only between tenants and landlords.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, with [The flatmate] acknowledging she chose to be a flatmate rather than a tenant, I am satisfied that this arrangement between [The flatmate] and [The tenant] is one of a flatmate situation. [The tenant] paid the rent to the landlord and [The flatmate] paid her contribution to [The tenant]. They shared bills, common areas and responsibilities under their Housing Sharing Agreement. [The tenant] did not lodge the bond either with the Tenancy Services Bond Centre but retained the bond until [The flatmate] moved out. 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 flatmate] wishes to progress her claim, she would need to file an application in the Disputes Tribunal. Refund of the bond
As the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim for refund of the bond, this claim is dismissed, as is the claim for reimbursement of the filing fee. 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

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
By way of declaration, it is noted that the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the relationship or agreement between the parties.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by teleconference.
[The flatmate] applied for refund of a bond she paid to [The tenant]. The issue of whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim arose.
[The tenant] is the sole tenant of the property in a Tenancy Agreement with the landlord of the property, formerly known as [Tenancy address suppressed]. [The tenant] said the apartment building is a brand-new complex and her apartment was initially assigned as [address]. After 3-4 months, [The tenant] said she received notice that the flat number had been changed to [address].
[The tenant] said she searched for a flatmate and that [The flatmate] applied to live at the property. Both parties agreed that when [The flatmate] was accepted to live with [The tenant] at the property, [The tenant] asked her if she wanted to be a tenant or a flatmate, and that [The flatmate] said that, as she did not intend to stay long, she would be a flatmate.
The parties signed a Housing Sharing Agreement dated 4 January 2023, which provided that [The flatmate] was a flatmate, [The tenant] was the head tenant, that [The flatmate] would pay $250.00 per week in rent and an additional $50.00 per week towards joint bills such as power, water, internet, and that each party would clean up after themselves in their own areas and would clean up common areas, such as the kitchen, after themselves. There were further agreements about respecting the privacy and peace of other flatmates. [The flatmate] paid $950.00 to [The tenant] for a bond. [The tenant] said she retained this bond until [The flatmate] moved out and did not try to lodge it with the Tenancy Services Bond Centre.
[The flatmate] confirmed that she had her own bedroom and bathroom, that [The tenant] had her own bedroom with an ensuite bathroom, and they both had use of the living area, kitchen, balcony and laundry area. [The tenant] said she agreed to clean the common areas so that [The flatmate] only had to clean her own bedroom and bathroom.
The Housing Sharing Agreement provided, amongst other things, that [The tenant] would notify [The flatmate] if [The tenant] received any notices from the landlord, of inspections or otherwise.
The dispute between the parties arose when [The flatmate] moved out and said she had left her bedroom and bathroom clean and tidy, but [The tenant] only paid her all but $120.00 of the $950.00 bond back. [The tenant] disputed that [The flatmate]’ bedroom and bathroom were left clean and said she had to engage a cleaner who charged her $120.00 to clean these areas.

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

The Tribunal’s general jurisdiction, under s77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). s 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...” Landlord, means, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement....” 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. Section 5(1)(n) specifically excludes arrangements where the premises are being used for residence by the landlord. Such a situation may be one where a tenant has flatmates to help them pay the rent.
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 flatmates, only between tenants and landlords.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, with [The flatmate] acknowledging she chose to be a flatmate rather than a tenant, I am satisfied that this arrangement between [The flatmate] and [The tenant] is one of a flatmate situation. [The tenant] paid the rent to the landlord and [The flatmate] paid her contribution to [The tenant]. They shared bills, common areas and responsibilities under their Housing Sharing Agreement. [The tenant] did not lodge the bond either with the Tenancy Services Bond Centre but retained the bond until [The flatmate] moved out. 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 flatmate] wishes to progress her claim, she would need to file an application in the Disputes Tribunal. Refund of the bond
As the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim for refund of the bond, this claim is dismissed, as is the claim for reimbursement of the filing fee. 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 4722116 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4722116 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions