What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4786867 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] and Jenifer Mary Oliver as Trustee for STUART FAMILIY

How much money was awarded in case 4786867?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4786867?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4786867?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9930065-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4786867 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] and Jenifer Mary Oliver as Trustee for STUART FAMILIY

How much money was awarded in case 4786867?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4786867?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4786867?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9930065-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

19 Keirunga Road, Havelock North, Havelock North 4130 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4786867 — Boarding House

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing by telephone on 31 January 2024.

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.

The tenancy was terminated by a valid notice being served on [The tenant/s] on 9 November 2024. The termination date was 12 January 2024. Jurisdiction

[The tenant/s] claimed that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the application. He said that this is an excluded tenancy under s5(1)(n) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) because he is a member of the landlord’s family.

Section 5(1)(n) states that the RTA is excluded: “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.”

[The landlord/s] said that this tenancy started in 2019 and the parties have always behaved as if the RTA applied. There is a written tenancy agreement which refers to the RTA and the Tribunal. This was the first time that [The tenant/s] suggested the tenancy is “excluded”.

I adjourned the hearing and made timetabling directions for the exchange of submissions in relation to jurisdiction. The timetable for submissions has now lapsed. David and Jenifer Oliver made comprehensive submissions. [The tenant/s] did not reply.

The s5(1)(n) exclusion applies where the landlord and a member of the landlord’s family both reside at the premises concurrently. 1

In Voss the Court stated: “The effect of the wording “continue to be used” and “during the tenancy” are indicative of two concurrent occupations. The wording points to an intention by Parliament to exclude the Act in situations were [sic] a landlord, owner, or their family continues to “use” the premises “principally as a place of residence” throughout the and “during the tenancy” of an additional tenant or tenants. As such, the subsection is not intended to apply to a sole tenancy of a family member where there is no concurrent occupation.”

This situation is consistent with the facts in the Voss case. [The tenant/s] has exclusive possession of the premises under the tenancy agreement. The landlord/owners do not reside at the premises. There is no concurrent occupation. The s5(1)(n) exclusion does not apply.

I find that this Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the landlord’s application. Possession of the Premises

The tenancy ended on 12 January 2024, which is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are satisfied.

[The tenant/s] had 90 days’ notice of the termination. It has been four weeks since the termination date. That is, he has had 4 months to make alternative accommodation arrangements. I considered granting immediate possession to the landlord. On balance, I have allowed [The tenant/s] a further two weeks to vacate the premises. 1 Voss v Voss [2022] NZDC 677; Snetch v Tenants [2023] ZTT 4423381, 4397202; Nie V Zhao [2020]

[The landlord/s] and Jenifer Mary Oliver as Trustee for STUART FAMILIY TRUST are granted possession of the premises at 19 Keirunga Road, Havelock North, Havelock North 4130 at 4pm on Thursday, 22 February 2024.

Access to the premises has been an issue since the notice to terminate was served on [The tenant/s]. The parties should be aware that their rights and obligations as landlord and tenant remain in force until [The tenant/s] vacates the premises. In particular, the landlord is entitled to exercise its rights of entry as set out in s48 RTA.

Order

[The landlord/s] and Jenifer Mary Oliver as Trustee for STUART FAMILIY TRUST are granted possession of the premises at 19 Keirunga Road, Havelock North, Havelock North 4130 at 4pm on Thursday, 22 February 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing by telephone on 31 January 2024.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.
The tenancy was terminated by a valid notice being served on [The tenant/s] on 9 November 2024. The termination date was 12 January 2024. Jurisdiction
[The tenant/s] claimed that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the application. He said that this is an excluded tenancy under s5(1)(n) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) because he is a member of the landlord’s family.
Section 5(1)(n) states that the RTA is excluded: “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.”
[The landlord/s] said that this tenancy started in 2019 and the parties have always behaved as if the RTA applied. There is a written tenancy agreement which refers to the RTA and the Tribunal. This was the first time that [The tenant/s] suggested the tenancy is “excluded”.
I adjourned the hearing and made timetabling directions for the exchange of submissions in relation to jurisdiction. The timetable for submissions has now lapsed. David and Jenifer Oliver made comprehensive submissions. [The tenant/s] did not reply.
The s5(1)(n) exclusion applies where the landlord and a member of the landlord’s family both reside at the premises concurrently. 1
In Voss the Court stated: “The effect of the wording “continue to be used” and “during the tenancy” are indicative of two concurrent occupations. The wording points to an intention by Parliament to exclude the Act in situations were [sic] a landlord, owner, or their family continues to “use” the premises “principally as a place of residence” throughout the and “during the tenancy” of an additional tenant or tenants. As such, the subsection is not intended to apply to a sole tenancy of a family member where there is no concurrent occupation.”
This situation is consistent with the facts in the Voss case. [The tenant/s] has exclusive possession of the premises under the tenancy agreement. The landlord/owners do not reside at the premises. There is no concurrent occupation. The s5(1)(n) exclusion does not apply.
I find that this Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the landlord’s application. Possession of the Premises
The tenancy ended on 12 January 2024, which is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are satisfied.
[The tenant/s] had 90 days’ notice of the termination. It has been four weeks since the termination date. That is, he has had 4 months to make alternative accommodation arrangements. I considered granting immediate possession to the landlord. On balance, I have allowed [The tenant/s] a further two weeks to vacate the premises. 1 Voss v Voss [2022] NZDC 677; Snetch v Tenants [2023] ZTT 4423381, 4397202; Nie V Zhao [2020]
[The landlord/s] and Jenifer Mary Oliver as Trustee for STUART FAMILIY TRUST are granted possession of the premises at 19 Keirunga Road, Havelock North, Havelock North 4130 at 4pm on Thursday, 22 February 2024.
Access to the premises has been an issue since the notice to terminate was served on [The tenant/s]. The parties should be aware that their rights and obligations as landlord and tenant remain in force until [The tenant/s] vacates the premises. In particular, the landlord is entitled to exercise its rights of entry as set out in s48 RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4786867 — Boarding House at 19 Keirunga Road, Havelock North, Havelock North 4130

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4786867 — Boarding House at 19 Keirunga Road, Havelock North, Havelock North 4130

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions