What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4773317 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy is an excluded tenancy under section 5(1)(n) Residential

How much money was awarded in case 4773317?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4773317?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4773317?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10108916-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4773317 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy is an excluded tenancy under section 5(1)(n) Residential

How much money was awarded in case 4773317?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4773317?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4773317?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10108916-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

170 Milford Clandeboye Road, Milford, Temuka 7986 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4773317 — Boarding House

Order

The tenancy is an excluded tenancy under section 5(1)(n) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The application is dismissed.

Reasons

[The tenant/s] attended the hearing by teleconference on behalf of all the applicant tenants. [The landlord/s], the respondent, also attended the hearing by teleconference, with her support person, [The landlord’s support person]. The Mandarin interpreter, [The interpreter], also attended the hearing by teleconference.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The applicant claimed that there was a vacated boarding house tenancy, for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the application fee.
The applicants moved into the respondent’s property on 4 November 2023. They left the property on 10 December 2023. [The tenant/s] maintained the living arrangements were a boarding house situation. Both parties confirmed a bond of $720.00 was provided by the applicants to the respondent, [The landlord/s]. The applicants sought refund of the bond, which was disputed by [The landlord/s]. There was no cross application filed by [The landlord/s]. Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims? Is there a tenancy?
The Tribunal must first consider whether it has jurisdiction to consider the substantive application for refund of the bond.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) does not apply to all tenancies; some are excluded.
Section 5(1)(k) RTA provides that an excluded tenancy is one where the premises are intended to provide temporary or transient accommodation that is ordinarily provided for periods of less than 28 days at a time.
Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides that an excluded tenancy is one 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.
‘Premises’, that are other than a boarding house tenancy, are defined in section 2 of the RTA as including any part of any premises. This means that you can have a building that is made up of several different premises or “household units”, as described in the Building Act 2004. Further, the definition of ‘premises’ in section 2 of the RTA includes any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land. This would include a sleepout.
[The landlord/s] emphatically denied that the living situation with the applicants was that of a boarding house. She said that her home is the main house on the property and there is also a sleepout on the same property. [The landlord/s] maintained that she left her personal furniture and photographs in the main house, moved her clothes into the sleepout at the property and went to sleep in the sleepout. During this time, she said she rented out the 4 bedrooms in her main house, to those looking for short term orchard work in the area mainly. She said these applicants were amongst the first to be involved in this arrangement, that she asked for a deposit or bond, to cover any potential damages they caused, and that she agreed on $170.00 per week for each of the three applicants to pay rent for their stay. [The tenant/s] confirmed they had told [The landlord/s] they would stay until at least 5 December 2024, but ended up extending their stay until 10 December 2024. The parties agreed there was no written tenancy agreement or other written agreement signed by the parties about their living arrangements.
[The tenant/s] said that at one time during their stay there were about 6 people staying at the house, that they had the right to occupy their own bedrooms (2 of them stayed in one bedroom and the other in a separate bedroom) and shared communal facilities, such as the kitchen, bathroom, toilet, living room, dining area and laundry. [The tenant/s] claimed this confirmed the living situation was that of a boarding house, as the three of them ended up staying for more than 28 days, just over 5 weeks.
[The landlord/s] said she never had an intention to run a boarding house, there was no written agreement, that there was only one other person staying at the house when the three applicants arrived to stay and that, during their stay, a further 2 people stayed at the house for no longer than about 1.5 weeks each. She continued that a friend of the applicants also spent about 1.5 weeks staying at the house towards the end of their stay, when others left. She said there are 4 bedrooms. She emphasised that those staying at the property were only there for short durations, much less than 28 days generally, that these three applicants had originally intended to stay only for about a month, but then extended their stay by a brief time. [The landlord/s] said this property is her home, that she resides at the main house as a rule, except when she rented out the bedrooms short term for pickers, when she moved out into the sleepout. She remained on the property when others stayed in the main house, but she did not go into the main house when others stayed there, as she said she had a bad past experience of this. [The landlord/s] pointed out that her family photographs and belongings and furniture remained in the main house during the stay of the three applicants. [The landlord/s] believed she was providing accommodation for less than 28 days on a transient or temporary basis, for short term pickers in the area to find work. She thought her arrangement was an excluded tenancy as it was both transient and less than 28 days, and also because it was principally her family home and her main residence, even whilst others came to stay there. [The landlord/s] said there have not been any others staying at the property since the three applicants left, as she had been upset by the claims.
Section 66B RTA provides that a “boarding house” means residential premises containing 1 or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants of the boarding house and occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time. “Boarding house tenancy” means a residential tenancy in a boarding house that is intended to, or that does in fact, last for 28 days or more and under which the tenant is granted exclusive rights to occupy particular sleeping quarters in the boarding house, and has the right to the shared use of the facilities of the boarding house.
Based on the evidence outlined above, particularly that there were only 4 bedrooms in the house, that the landlord did not intend this to be occupied by at least 6 tenants at one time, that there were 2 people who came to stay only for
5 weeks, which is what [The tenant/s] relied on to say there were 6 people staying at the house at one time when they stayed there, and this is far less than 28 days, and that [The landlord/s] was clear that any stays at her house were only short term and generally much less than 28 days, I find there is insufficient evidence to prove the living situation was that of a boarding house.
[The landlord/s] evidence was that this is her family home, that she resides there when others are not staying in the main house, that her photographs and belongings remained in the house and only her own clothes were moved out to the sleepout, and that the sleepout where [The landlord/s] stayed still forms part of the property and so she continued to reside on the premises. As such, I find the premises continued to be used during the applicants’ stay, principally as a place of residence by [The landlord/s], who owned the premises. As I have also found this was not a boarding house, the living situation falls under the provisions of section 5(1)(n) RTA, and this is an excluded tenancy.
As this is an excluded tenancy, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the substantive claim raised about refund of the bond. For these reasons, the application is dismissed.
As the claim has not been successful, I do not reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
All parties requested suppression.
Section 95A(4) RTA provides that 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.
The three applicants were short term visitors to the area who stayed with the respondent. [The landlord/s] said this was a relatively new situation for her that ended up creating too much difficultly for her and she has not chosen to continue. From the evidence, all parties ended up in a challenging situation that they have been unable to sort out so far. In the circumstances, and given the evidence, I find the interests of the parties in not having their names published outweighs the public interest in doing so. Therefore, I order that the parties’ names and identifying details are not to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4773317 — Boarding House at 170 Milford Clandeboye Road, Milford, Temuka 7986

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4773317 — Boarding House at 170 Milford Clandeboye Road, Milford, Temuka 7986

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