What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4745322 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published

How much money was awarded in case 4745322?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4745322?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4745322?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9832949-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4745322 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published

How much money was awarded in case 4745322?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4745322?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4745322?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9832949-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

74 Landscape Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4745322 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4745322 — net $820.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
to [the tenant] immediately as calculated in the table below. Bond repayment	$800.00	to [the tenant] immediately as calculated in the table below. Bond repayment
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$820.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$820.44

The hearing was conducted by audio call on Microsoft Teams.

Both parties attended the hearing.

The premises was advertised on Facebook as a “one-bedroom unit”. The unit is in the nature of a converted sleepout. The tenant agreed to a tenancy at the premises but then pulled out two days later because, among other things, she was concerned that the proposed gas bottle-fuelled stove would not be safe for her four-year-old child. Background

The landlord retained the bond because he missed out on renting the premises out to other interested parties and he could not find a new tenant for several weeks.

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.

Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim.

The primary issue the Tribunal was required to determine was whether the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies to the tenant’s claim. The agreement between the parties was described as being a flatmate/house sharing one. Section 5(1)(n) of the RTA disapplies the RTA “where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises”. 1 Discussion

The Tribunal spent a considerable portion of the hearing considering whether the premises were the sleepout unit or were the sleepout unit combined the main house which the landlord resides in. 1 See McCaughan v a landlord [2021] NZTT [Event location suppressed] 4209883 for a detailed discussion of a determination of whether a party was a flatmate or a boarder.

I am satisfied that the sleepout unit only was the premises. The tenant would have had a right of exclusive possession of the unit and the landlord would retain a right of exclusive possession of the main house.

The parties disagreed as to whether the landlord told the tenant that although there were some cooking facilities in the unit, she could also use the cooking facilities in the main house.

I prefer the tenant’s evidence that the landlord never told her that she could use the kitchen in the main house. The agreement does not set out what the premises are aside from stating the address. None of the text messages and no document indicates that the premises included anything more than the unit.

The landlord’s advertisement describing the premises as a one-bedroom unit do not tally with flatting arrangement, nor is the unit’s fitout consistent with flatting.

Even if I had found the landlord had told the tenant she could enter the main house to use the cooking facilities (and there is no clarity as to the extent of the purported licence to do this), I would have been inclined to find that the purported licence to use the kitchen for cooking was a limited licence and did not change the fundamental nature of the unit and the main house being separate premises in substance. The landlord and tenant were – notwithstanding the terminology used in the agreement - not “head tenant” and “flatmate” or similar. They were landlord and tenant.

It follows, I am not satisfied that the RTA is disapplied. Conclusion

The tenant has applied for repayment of her bond. The landlord has not filed a counterclaim. The bond must be refunded in full to the tenant.

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

The tenant seeks an order for non-publication of her name and identifying details. Non-publication

Under s 95A(1) of the RTA, 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.

The tenant has wholly succeeded in her claim. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or otherwise justified under s 95A(1). Addendum

If the landlord intends to continue renting the premises out, The Tribunal urges him to engage with the RTA and ensure the premises complies with the smoke alarms regulations, insulation standards and the other standards required by the Healthy Homes Standards and other enactments. The Tenancy Services website helpfully sets out landlords’ obligations.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4745322 — net $820.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
to [the tenant] immediately as calculated in the table below. Bond repayment	$800.00	to [the tenant] immediately as calculated in the table below. Bond repayment
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$820.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$820.44