What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4786862 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 4786862?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4786862?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4786862?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10545292-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4786862 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 4786862?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4786862?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4786862?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10545292-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

31 Bengston Street, Eketahuna, Eketahuna 4900 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4786862 — Cleanliness

Order

The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

The Tribunal has received an application from the ‘landlord’ seeking orders in relation to the ‘tenants’. The tenancy has ended, and before I can consider whether the requested orders can be made, I need to determine whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to make those orders in the first instance. That is because the current claims relate to matters that have either been before the Tribunal already, or relate to matters that occurred after the tenancy terminated, and possession of the premises returned to the landlord.
For the purpose of this decision, the background can be summarised succinctly as follows: a. The tenancy commenced on 25 September 2020. b. Following an order from the Tenancy Tribunal of 26 November 2021, the tenancy was terminated, and possession was ordered to return to the landlord. c. When the tenants failed to return possession of the tenancy to the landlord, they were evicted on 10 December 2021.
The landlord made wide-ranging applications to the tenancy Tribunal, which were the subject of a decision from adjudicator Lash dated 15 April 2022. That included a claim that the tenants had harassed neighbours, which in that case was the landlord, who lived locally. The adjudicator accepted the tenants had harassed neighbours and breached their obligations under the RTA, and therefore committed an a lawful act. However the adjudicator declined to award exemplary damages, because she considered that there had also been inappropriate behaviour from the landlord toward the tenants also. Therefore while the adjudicator found the had been a breach, no orders were made against the tenants. That decision carried with it the right of appeal to the District Court, should either the landlord or tenant disagree with it.
On 21 January 2024 the landlord has filed a further claim against the tenant, and that is the subject of this decision. The landlord claims continued harassment from the tenants toward him, as well as physical assault. The landlord also reports damage to his vehicle.
As I raised with the landlord at the hearing today, there is an immediate issue I can see with this application, and that is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to make any orders. I indicated to the landlord at the hearing today that I considered that I did not have jurisdiction, but that I would take into consideration the landlord’s submissions, and review any judgments from the court on the matter, and I have now done that.
The landlord raised concerns in relation to what has occurred in the tenancy, and the order from Adjudicator Lash. It is well-settled law, that when a court or Tribunal issues a decision, it is binding and the end of the matter. Decisions normally come with the right of appeal as did Adjudicator Lash’s order, meaning that if the landlord disagreed with the adjudicator’s conclusions, such as declining to make any orders against the tenant for harassment, then that order could have been appealed to the District Court, but I cannot go behind that order and issue any further decision in relation to matters which have previously been considered. To put that into a legal context, an estoppel applies.
The question then becomes, whether the Tribunal can consider any of the events described by the landlord after the tenancy ended.
In my assessment, the tenancy ended following the order of the Tribunal terminating the tenancy. When the tenants failed to leave following the termination that did not create a continuing tenancy, all that happened was that the tenant’s obligations carried on until 10 December 2021 when the eviction occurred (see section 60 of the RTA).
The problem for the landlord in the current claim, is that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is limited given section 77 which holds: 77 Jurisdiction of Tribunal The Tribunal has, subject to the Limitation Act 2010, jurisdiction to determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that— (a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time.
Sub-subsection (b) confirms that for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction, the dispute must relate to a tenancy to which the Act applies, or at the material time. After the tenancy terminated, there was no continuing tenancy, and therefore the Tribunal could not consider any dispute following. Where that provision states “did apply at any material time”, the operative word is ‘did’ meaning that the Tenancy applied at the earlier time. That would pick up the situation where a tenancy has ended, and the claim is filed for let’s say cleaning or damage that occurred during the tenant’s occupation of the premises.
Mr Haines for the landlord submitted that there was a continuing tenancy because there was a debt that was owed as established in an earlier Tribunal order. I do not agree. Just because there is a debt, does not mean there is a continuing contractual obligation, or to put it another way, a continuing tenancy. Certainly there is a debt, and that needs to be paid, but that is not a consequence of an obligation under the contract, but because there is a requirement to pay the debt as it is an order of the Tribunal, relating to when the contract / tenancy existed.
It cannot have been in the intention of parliament that where there is a landlord tenant application, which subsequently ends, there will forever be a continuing tenancy, or other obligation that arises within the RTA, for a tenancy ended years prior.
As I said I would do, I have looked to find any decisions where the courts have considered similar matters, and I have been unable to find any. I have therefore needed to reach my own view of the law, as expressed above.
For those reasons, I find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider this claim, and it must be dismissed.
A record for completeness, that in reaching this finding I am not expressing any view as to the complaints underlying this application, I have no jurisdiction to do so. If what Mr Haines has described is correct, that behaviour would be atrocious.
The landlord may well have further avenues to advance the matters described, but they would not be within the jurisdiction of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)

Order

The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

The Tribunal has received an application from the ‘landlord’ seeking orders in relation to the ‘tenants’. The tenancy has ended, and before I can consider whether the requested orders can be made, I need to determine whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to make those orders in the first instance. That is because the current claims relate to matters that have either been before the Tribunal already, or relate to matters that occurred after the tenancy terminated, and possession of the premises returned to the landlord.
For the purpose of this decision, the background can be summarised succinctly as follows: a. The tenancy commenced on 25 September 2020. b. Following an order from the Tenancy Tribunal of 26 November 2021, the tenancy was terminated, and possession was ordered to return to the landlord. c. When the tenants failed to return possession of the tenancy to the landlord, they were evicted on 10 December 2021.
The landlord made wide-ranging applications to the tenancy Tribunal, which were the subject of a decision from adjudicator Lash dated 15 April 2022. That included a claim that the tenants had harassed neighbours, which in that case was the landlord, who lived locally. The adjudicator accepted the tenants had harassed neighbours and breached their obligations under the RTA, and therefore committed an a lawful act. However the adjudicator declined to award exemplary damages, because she considered that there had also been inappropriate behaviour from the landlord toward the tenants also. Therefore while the adjudicator found the had been a breach, no orders were made against the tenants. That decision carried with it the right of appeal to the District Court, should either the landlord or tenant disagree with it.
On 21 January 2024 the landlord has filed a further claim against the tenant, and that is the subject of this decision. The landlord claims continued harassment from the tenants toward him, as well as physical assault. The landlord also reports damage to his vehicle.
As I raised with the landlord at the hearing today, there is an immediate issue I can see with this application, and that is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to make any orders. I indicated to the landlord at the hearing today that I considered that I did not have jurisdiction, but that I would take into consideration the landlord’s submissions, and review any judgments from the court on the matter, and I have now done that.
The landlord raised concerns in relation to what has occurred in the tenancy, and the order from Adjudicator Lash. It is well-settled law, that when a court or Tribunal issues a decision, it is binding and the end of the matter. Decisions normally come with the right of appeal as did Adjudicator Lash’s order, meaning that if the landlord disagreed with the adjudicator’s conclusions, such as declining to make any orders against the tenant for harassment, then that order could have been appealed to the District Court, but I cannot go behind that order and issue any further decision in relation to matters which have previously been considered. To put that into a legal context, an estoppel applies.
The question then becomes, whether the Tribunal can consider any of the events described by the landlord after the tenancy ended.
In my assessment, the tenancy ended following the order of the Tribunal terminating the tenancy. When the tenants failed to leave following the termination that did not create a continuing tenancy, all that happened was that the tenant’s obligations carried on until 10 December 2021 when the eviction occurred (see section 60 of the RTA).
The problem for the landlord in the current claim, is that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is limited given section 77 which holds: 77 Jurisdiction of Tribunal The Tribunal has, subject to the Limitation Act 2010, jurisdiction to determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that— (a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time.
Sub-subsection (b) confirms that for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction, the dispute must relate to a tenancy to which the Act applies, or at the material time. After the tenancy terminated, there was no continuing tenancy, and therefore the Tribunal could not consider any dispute following. Where that provision states “did apply at any material time”, the operative word is ‘did’ meaning that the Tenancy applied at the earlier time. That would pick up the situation where a tenancy has ended, and the claim is filed for let’s say cleaning or damage that occurred during the tenant’s occupation of the premises.
Mr Haines for the landlord submitted that there was a continuing tenancy because there was a debt that was owed as established in an earlier Tribunal order. I do not agree. Just because there is a debt, does not mean there is a continuing contractual obligation, or to put it another way, a continuing tenancy. Certainly there is a debt, and that needs to be paid, but that is not a consequence of an obligation under the contract, but because there is a requirement to pay the debt as it is an order of the Tribunal, relating to when the contract / tenancy existed.
It cannot have been in the intention of parliament that where there is a landlord tenant application, which subsequently ends, there will forever be a continuing tenancy, or other obligation that arises within the RTA, for a tenancy ended years prior.
As I said I would do, I have looked to find any decisions where the courts have considered similar matters, and I have been unable to find any. I have therefore needed to reach my own view of the law, as expressed above.
For those reasons, I find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider this claim, and it must be dismissed.
A record for completeness, that in reaching this finding I am not expressing any view as to the complaints underlying this application, I have no jurisdiction to do so. If what Mr Haines has described is correct, that behaviour would be atrocious.
The landlord may well have further avenues to advance the matters described, but they would not be within the jurisdiction of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)

Tenancy Tribunal case 4786862 — Cleanliness at 31 Bengston Street, Eketahuna, Eketahuna 4900

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4786862 — Cleanliness at 31 Bengston Street, Eketahuna, Eketahuna 4900

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions