What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4786398 about?

The tribunal order states: The arrangement between the parties is excluded from the Tribunal’s

How much money was awarded in case 4786398?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4786398?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4786398?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10078927-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4786398 about?

The tribunal order states: The arrangement between the parties is excluded from the Tribunal’s

How much money was awarded in case 4786398?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4786398?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4786398?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10078927-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4786398 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The arrangement between the parties is excluded from the Tribunal’s jurisdiction by section 5(1)(t) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the tenant’s application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
For convenience, the parties are referred to in this Order as the tenant and the landlord.
The purpose of the hearing was to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the tenant’s application.
The parties accepted the following facts: a. The landlord agreed to rent a site to the tenant on which he would place his caravan and occupy it as his place of residence. b. The tenant would pay the landlord a rental for the site.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear disputes between landlords and tenants provided the dispute relates to a tenancy to which the RTA applies. See section 77(1) RTA.
The Tribunal must first establish whether there is a residential tenancy in place between the parties. Then it must determine whether it is excluded by one of the provisions of section 5 RTA. Residential Tenancy
The parties entered into an agreement called “Residential tenancy agreement” but containing few details. The name alone of this document does not determine the nature of the relationship between the parties. It is for the Tribunal to look at the substance of the agreement between the parties and determine whether there is residential tenancy between the parties.
“Tenancy” is defined in section 2(1) RTA: “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.”
“Residential premises” is defined in section 2 RTA: “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.”
“Premises” is defined in section 2 RTA to include any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land.
The parties agree that the tenant pays the landlord a rental for the use of the caravan site. A tenancy therefore exists between the parties. The caravan site meets the statutory definition of residential premises and it is occupied as a place of residence by the tenant. A residential tenancy therefore exists between the parties. Exclusion of the RTA
Section 4 RTA provides that the RTA applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically excluded. Section 5 RTA sets out the exclusions and particular circumstances where the Act does not apply.
The landlord claims that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction based on the exclusion in section 5(1)(t) RTA which provides that the RTA does not apply to premises which “comprise bare land (with or without facilities) on which the tenant has the right under the tenancy agreement to place or erect a mobile home, caravan or other means of shelter.”
It is for the landlord to establish the facts on which they contend that the Act does not apply. See section 10 RTA. Decision
The parties agree that the landlord has rented to the tenant a bare site with access to communal facilities and that the tenant has supplied his own caravan.
The landlord has not rented to the tenant a “mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land”. The tenant has supplied his own caravan.
The exclusion in section 5(1)(t) applies to the agreement between the parties. The landlord’s only obligation under their agreement is to supply bare land and shared facilities on which the tenant has the right under the tenancy agreement to place his caravan.
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the issues between the parties. Name suppression
Section 95A(4) RTA provides that the Tribunal, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, may order suppression of the details of the parties.
As the Tribunal has determined that it does not have jurisdiction, only the Tribunal’s decision has any public interest and the details of the parties are to be suppressed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.

For convenience, the parties are referred to in this Order as the tenant and the landlord.

The purpose of the hearing was to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the tenant’s application.

The parties accepted the following facts: a. The landlord agreed to rent a site to the tenant on which he would place his caravan and occupy it as his place of residence. b. The tenant would pay the landlord a rental for the site.

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear disputes between landlords and tenants provided the dispute relates to a tenancy to which the RTA applies. See section 77(1) RTA.

The Tribunal must first establish whether there is a residential tenancy in place between the parties. Then it must determine whether it is excluded by one of the provisions of section 5 RTA. Residential Tenancy

The parties entered into an agreement called “Residential tenancy agreement” but containing few details. The name alone of this document does not determine the nature of the relationship between the parties. It is for the Tribunal to look at the substance of the agreement between the parties and determine whether there is residential tenancy between the parties.

“Tenancy” is defined in section 2(1) RTA: “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.”

“Residential premises” is defined in section 2 RTA: “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.”

“Premises” is defined in section 2 RTA to include any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land.

The parties agree that the tenant pays the landlord a rental for the use of the caravan site. A tenancy therefore exists between the parties. The caravan site meets the statutory definition of residential premises and it is occupied as a place of residence by the tenant. A residential tenancy therefore exists between the parties. Exclusion of the RTA

Section 4 RTA provides that the RTA applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically excluded. Section 5 RTA sets out the exclusions and particular circumstances where the Act does not apply.

The landlord claims that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction based on the exclusion in section 5(1)(t) RTA which provides that the RTA does not apply to premises which “comprise bare land (with or without facilities) on which the tenant has the right under the tenancy agreement to place or erect a mobile home, caravan or other means of shelter.”

It is for the landlord to establish the facts on which they contend that the Act does not apply. See section 10 RTA. Decision

The parties agree that the landlord has rented to the tenant a bare site with access to communal facilities and that the tenant has supplied his own caravan.

The landlord has not rented to the tenant a “mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land”. The tenant has supplied his own caravan.

The exclusion in section 5(1)(t) applies to the agreement between the parties. The landlord’s only obligation under their agreement is to supply bare land and shared facilities on which the tenant has the right under the tenancy agreement to place his caravan.

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the issues between the parties. Name suppression

Section 95A(4) RTA provides that the Tribunal, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, may order suppression of the details of the parties.

As the Tribunal has determined that it does not have jurisdiction, only the Tribunal’s decision has any public interest and the details of the parties are to be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4786398 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4786398 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions