What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4762118 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is struck out. The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction

How much money was awarded in case 4762118?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4762118?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4762118?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9992617-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4762118 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is struck out. The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction

How much money was awarded in case 4762118?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4762118?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4762118?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9992617-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

34A Third View Avenue, Beachlands, Auckland 2018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4762118 — Boarding House

Reasons

Ms Skinner and Mr Marais attended a telephone hearing. They were supported during the hearing by the owner of the property.

Mr Hammond did not attend. I called him three times. The first call was answered and promptly disconnected. The second and third calls went to voicemail.

Ms Skinner and Mr Marais have applied for refund of a $400 bond paid to Mr Hammond.

Before the hearing, Mr Hammond contacted the Tribunal and advised that this was a flat mate/house-sharing situation.

There is a preliminary issue whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies.

The RTA does not apply to disputes between flatmates. The Disputes Tribunal is the appropriate forum for such claims.

Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. 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”

Mr Hammond rents these premises from the owner. He responded to a Facebook post by Ms Skinner and Mr Marais who were looking for somewhere to live. It was agreed that they would live at the premises with Mr Hammond and his partner.

The parties entered into an agreement dated 19 August 2023. I have considered whether the agreement points to the arrangement being a tenancy or a flatmate/ house sharing arrangement.

The following points were relevant to my conclusion that this was a flatmate arrangement: a. The agreement provided for payment of a $400 security bond to secure the premises. It also says that the bond will be returned to Ms Skinner & Mr Marais on the week that the first rent payment was due. That is inconsistent with a tenancy bond to be lodged at the bond centre. b. The agreement records the parties’ agreement around domestic issues such as dishes and replacing food items. c. The agreement provides a mutual termination period of two weeks.

I find that this was a house sharing or flatmate situation; not a tenancy.

If I am wrong on that, then the exclusion in s5(1)(n) applies. In this situation, Mr Hammond would have been the “landlord” and the premises were used principally as his place of residence during this tenancy. Ms Skinner and Mr Marais did not occupy a “self-contained” area of the premises; facilities such as kitchen, bathroom and living area were shared.

During the hearing, I indicated to Ms Skinner that it was unlikely that I had jurisdiction to consider the application. Ms Skinner, Mr Marais and the property owner then gave evidence regarding the substantive dispute. The owner also raised issues which may be relevant to an application she wishes to bring against Mr Hammond. However, none of that evidence was relevant to whether or not I can hear this application.

The claim is struck out for lack of jurisdiction.

Order

The application is struck out. The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this application.

Reasons

Ms Skinner and Mr Marais attended a telephone hearing. They were supported during the hearing by the owner of the property.
Mr Hammond did not attend. I called him three times. The first call was answered and promptly disconnected. The second and third calls went to voicemail.
Ms Skinner and Mr Marais have applied for refund of a $400 bond paid to Mr Hammond.
Before the hearing, Mr Hammond contacted the Tribunal and advised that this was a flat mate/house-sharing situation.
There is a preliminary issue whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies.
The RTA does not apply to disputes between flatmates. The Disputes Tribunal is the appropriate forum for such claims.
Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. 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”
Mr Hammond rents these premises from the owner. He responded to a Facebook post by Ms Skinner and Mr Marais who were looking for somewhere to live. It was agreed that they would live at the premises with Mr Hammond and his partner.
The parties entered into an agreement dated 19 August 2023. I have considered whether the agreement points to the arrangement being a tenancy or a flatmate/ house sharing arrangement.
The following points were relevant to my conclusion that this was a flatmate arrangement: a. The agreement provided for payment of a $400 security bond to secure the premises. It also says that the bond will be returned to Ms Skinner & Mr Marais on the week that the first rent payment was due. That is inconsistent with a tenancy bond to be lodged at the bond centre. b. The agreement records the parties’ agreement around domestic issues such as dishes and replacing food items. c. The agreement provides a mutual termination period of two weeks.
I find that this was a house sharing or flatmate situation; not a tenancy.
If I am wrong on that, then the exclusion in s5(1)(n) applies. In this situation, Mr Hammond would have been the “landlord” and the premises were used principally as his place of residence during this tenancy. Ms Skinner and Mr Marais did not occupy a “self-contained” area of the premises; facilities such as kitchen, bathroom and living area were shared.
During the hearing, I indicated to Ms Skinner that it was unlikely that I had jurisdiction to consider the application. Ms Skinner, Mr Marais and the property owner then gave evidence regarding the substantive dispute. The owner also raised issues which may be relevant to an application she wishes to bring against Mr Hammond. However, none of that evidence was relevant to whether or not I can hear this application.
The claim is struck out for lack of jurisdiction.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4762118 — Boarding House at 34A Third View Avenue, Beachlands, Auckland 2018

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4762118 — Boarding House at 34A Third View Avenue, Beachlands, Auckland 2018

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions