What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4748290 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the Applicant’s

How much money was awarded in case 4748290?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4748290?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4748290?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9996313-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4748290 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the Applicant’s

How much money was awarded in case 4748290?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4748290?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4748290?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9996313-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4748290 — Cleanliness

Order

The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the Applicant’s application as the relationship between the parties is excluded by section 5(1)(n) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The names of the parties are suppressed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing.
For convenience, throughout this Order, I will refer to the parties as the tenant and the landlord.
The first matter for the Tribunal to determine before considering the landlord’s application for compensation is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction. Background
The landlord gave evidence that: a. She arranged to hire in her name a portable cabin for the exclusive occupation of the tenant. b. Through the contract with the cabin hire company, the landlord is responsible for outstanding rental amounts, cleaning and rubbish removal costs. c. The tenant lived in the cabin but shared the facilities of the landlord’s house including bathroom, kitchen and laundry. d. He ate meals prepared by the landlord for her family in the landlord’s home. e. The landlord’s home comprises five bedrooms, all of which are occupied by the landlord and her family. The law
Section 4 RTA provides that the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction over “every tenancy for residential purposes”, subject to the exemptions in section 5 RTA.
A “tenancy” means the right to occupy “residential premises” in consideration for rent. Residential premises are any premises used or intended for occupation as a place of residence. Premises includes any part of the premises. See section 2 RTA.
The landlord rented part of the premises, being the cabin, to the tenant for rent. The property was a residential property. A tenancy for residential purposes therefore existed.
The Tenancy Tribunal therefore has jurisdiction unless one of the exemptions in section 5(1) RTA applies.
Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides that the RTA does not apply 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, or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.
A boarder or flatmate is a person who lives with the owner. A useful analysis of the term “flatmate” is found in the District Court decision of Musson v Dobrisek DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006- 032-36, 5 May 2006 where the landlord considered himself to be the “head tenant” and that he rented the other rooms to others whom he considered to be “flatmates”.
On the issue of whether the legal relationship between a head tenant and the other occupants were flatmates of the head tenant, Judge Broadmore stated (at [22]): “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.”
The Court concluded (at paragraph 24): “It follows that the use of the word ‘flatmate’ does not in itself define the nature of the legal relationship between a flatmate and any landlord. The word is no more than a convenient label reflecting a functional reality; and it remains necessary to ascertain the legal nature of the relationship on the basis of the evidence.”
Concerning section 5(1)(n) of the Act, the Court said “principally” referred to the main use of the premises. The question to be asked was whether the principal use of the premises was as a place of residence by the landlord (paragraph 39): “I consider that this interpretation reflects what I perceive to be the policy objectives of the Act. Relevantly, it is intended to govern landlord/tenant relationships which are primarily commercial. Section 5(1)(n) appears to me intended to cover the situation of the owner or tenant of a house letting out a bedroom or bed-sitting room to a tenant or sub-tenant while the principal use of the house remains as accommodation for the landlord and the landlord’s family.” Decision
The property remained the principal place of residence of the landlord and the tenant was a flatmate or boarder, living in the cabin and sharing the landlord’s facilities under a licence to occupy the cabin.
The exclusion in section 5(1)(n) RTA applies to this tenancy and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction. Name suppression
Section 95A RTA provides that 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.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
This application has been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and so naming the parties has no public interest.
It is therefore appropriate to order suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

Order

The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the Applicant’s application as the relationship between the parties is excluded by section 5(1)(n) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The names of the parties are suppressed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing.
For convenience, throughout this Order, I will refer to the parties as the tenant and the landlord.
The first matter for the Tribunal to determine before considering the landlord’s application for compensation is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction. Background
The landlord gave evidence that: a. She arranged to hire in her name a portable cabin for the exclusive occupation of the tenant. b. Through the contract with the cabin hire company, the landlord is responsible for outstanding rental amounts, cleaning and rubbish removal costs. c. The tenant lived in the cabin but shared the facilities of the landlord’s house including bathroom, kitchen and laundry. d. He ate meals prepared by the landlord for her family in the landlord’s home. e. The landlord’s home comprises five bedrooms, all of which are occupied by the landlord and her family. The law
Section 4 RTA provides that the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction over “every tenancy for residential purposes”, subject to the exemptions in section 5 RTA.
A “tenancy” means the right to occupy “residential premises” in consideration for rent. Residential premises are any premises used or intended for occupation as a place of residence. Premises includes any part of the premises. See section 2 RTA.
The landlord rented part of the premises, being the cabin, to the tenant for rent. The property was a residential property. A tenancy for residential purposes therefore existed.
The Tenancy Tribunal therefore has jurisdiction unless one of the exemptions in section 5(1) RTA applies.
Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides that the RTA does not apply 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, or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.
A boarder or flatmate is a person who lives with the owner. A useful analysis of the term “flatmate” is found in the District Court decision of Musson v Dobrisek DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006- 032-36, 5 May 2006 where the landlord considered himself to be the “head tenant” and that he rented the other rooms to others whom he considered to be “flatmates”.
On the issue of whether the legal relationship between a head tenant and the other occupants were flatmates of the head tenant, Judge Broadmore stated (at [22]): “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.”
The Court concluded (at paragraph 24): “It follows that the use of the word ‘flatmate’ does not in itself define the nature of the legal relationship between a flatmate and any landlord. The word is no more than a convenient label reflecting a functional reality; and it remains necessary to ascertain the legal nature of the relationship on the basis of the evidence.”
Concerning section 5(1)(n) of the Act, the Court said “principally” referred to the main use of the premises. The question to be asked was whether the principal use of the premises was as a place of residence by the landlord (paragraph 39): “I consider that this interpretation reflects what I perceive to be the policy objectives of the Act. Relevantly, it is intended to govern landlord/tenant relationships which are primarily commercial. Section 5(1)(n) appears to me intended to cover the situation of the owner or tenant of a house letting out a bedroom or bed-sitting room to a tenant or sub-tenant while the principal use of the house remains as accommodation for the landlord and the landlord’s family.” Decision
The property remained the principal place of residence of the landlord and the tenant was a flatmate or boarder, living in the cabin and sharing the landlord’s facilities under a licence to occupy the cabin.
The exclusion in section 5(1)(n) RTA applies to this tenancy and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction. Name suppression
Section 95A RTA provides that 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.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
This application has been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and so naming the parties has no public interest.
It is therefore appropriate to order suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4748290 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4748290 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions