What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4748809 about?

This case concerned a boarding house dispute.

How much money was awarded in case 4748809?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4748809?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4748809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9963511-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4748809 about?

This case concerned a boarding house dispute.

How much money was awarded in case 4748809?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4748809?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4748809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9963511-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4748809 — Boarding House

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Respondent attend the hearing with his parents. An interpreter was provided for the Respondent.
The Applicant claimed refund of the bond. Background
On the 17 November 2023, the Applicant viewed the Respondent’s advertisement for a ‘room to rent’ on Facebook. The Applicant attended the property to view it and paid a ‘holding deposit’ of $500.00 into the Landlords bank account. There is a dispute as to whether this was refundable. The parties agreed the Applicant would move in on 24 November 2023 however due to personal circumstances, the Applicant told the Respondent on 20 November 2023 they could no longer move in. The Respondent refused to refund the bond stating it was non-refundable. There was no written Tenancy Agreement provided. There were five bedrooms at this property. The Respondent lived there with his wife and parents. There was one other person renting a room at that time. Jurisdiction
There is a preliminary issue whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Section 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. The terms ’residential premises’, ‘tenancy’, and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined as: residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful 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; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises; and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement
Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Section 10 RTA provides that, where a party to proceedings contends that the Act does not apply, they must establish the facts supporting their contention. In other words, they have the burden of proving the Act does not apply.
Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides that the Act 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
When determining whether the Act is excluded, the Tribunal considers the substance of the agreement between the parties rather than the labels they have applied. Analysis
The Applicant submitted this was a tenancy agreement where the Respondent agreed to rent out a room to her. The room was to be used exclusively by her and it could be locked from the inside. There was another two people renting out the two other rooms who she saw when she went to view the property but she was not sure if there were more. The common areas she could use was the kitchen, laundry and lounge area. The lounge area was shared with the Respondent. There was no agreement as to how long she would stay there however it was her intention to stay longer than a month.
The Respondent lived in the house with his family members which was their main place of residence and his intention was just to rent the room out. There was only one other person renting another room at the time. They only ever rented out two bedrooms. The kitchen and laundry was shared between the ‘renters’ but if they wanted to use certain appliances in the kitchen they would have to pay more. The Respondent was flexible as to how long they would rent the room out. It could be for a week up to years and the decision was made by his parents. There was no discussion as to whether the Applicant would stay more than 28 days.
In considering the evidence, I find this renting arrangement does not fall under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 because the Respondent and his family use this as their main place to live. This is not a boarding house as there were less than six boarders staying there at a time and the length of stay for renters can be less than 28 days.
For this reason, the Applicants application is dismissed.
Name suppression is granted to the Respondent as they have been substantially successful in this case. The Applicant did not apply for name suppression.
The Applicant may want to consider applying to other Tribunals to retrieve her bond.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Respondent attend the hearing with his parents. An interpreter was provided for the Respondent.
The Applicant claimed refund of the bond. Background
On the 17 November 2023, the Applicant viewed the Respondent’s advertisement for a ‘room to rent’ on Facebook. The Applicant attended the property to view it and paid a ‘holding deposit’ of $500.00 into the Landlords bank account. There is a dispute as to whether this was refundable. The parties agreed the Applicant would move in on 24 November 2023 however due to personal circumstances, the Applicant told the Respondent on 20 November 2023 they could no longer move in. The Respondent refused to refund the bond stating it was non-refundable. There was no written Tenancy Agreement provided. There were five bedrooms at this property. The Respondent lived there with his wife and parents. There was one other person renting a room at that time. Jurisdiction
There is a preliminary issue whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Section 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. The terms ’residential premises’, ‘tenancy’, and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined as: residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful 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; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises; and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement
Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Section 10 RTA provides that, where a party to proceedings contends that the Act does not apply, they must establish the facts supporting their contention. In other words, they have the burden of proving the Act does not apply.
Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides that the Act 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
When determining whether the Act is excluded, the Tribunal considers the substance of the agreement between the parties rather than the labels they have applied. Analysis
The Applicant submitted this was a tenancy agreement where the Respondent agreed to rent out a room to her. The room was to be used exclusively by her and it could be locked from the inside. There was another two people renting out the two other rooms who she saw when she went to view the property but she was not sure if there were more. The common areas she could use was the kitchen, laundry and lounge area. The lounge area was shared with the Respondent. There was no agreement as to how long she would stay there however it was her intention to stay longer than a month.
The Respondent lived in the house with his family members which was their main place of residence and his intention was just to rent the room out. There was only one other person renting another room at the time. They only ever rented out two bedrooms. The kitchen and laundry was shared between the ‘renters’ but if they wanted to use certain appliances in the kitchen they would have to pay more. The Respondent was flexible as to how long they would rent the room out. It could be for a week up to years and the decision was made by his parents. There was no discussion as to whether the Applicant would stay more than 28 days.
In considering the evidence, I find this renting arrangement does not fall under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 because the Respondent and his family use this as their main place to live. This is not a boarding house as there were less than six boarders staying there at a time and the length of stay for renters can be less than 28 days.
For this reason, the Applicants application is dismissed.
Name suppression is granted to the Respondent as they have been substantially successful in this case. The Applicant did not apply for name suppression.
The Applicant may want to consider applying to other Tribunals to retrieve her bond.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4748809 — Boarding House

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4748809 — Boarding House

At a glance

Claims & awards

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions