What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4786877?

The tribunal order states: The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not apply.

How much money was awarded in case 4786877?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4786877?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4786877?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10100533-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4786877?

The tribunal order states: The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not apply.

How much money was awarded in case 4786877?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4786877?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4786877?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10100533-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

411 Marshmeadow Road, Puketaha, RD 6, Hamilton 3286 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4786877 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not apply.
The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing by telephone.
Mrs Jarvis has made this application to the Tribunal. She rented a transportable cabin from Waikato Cabins under a “Cabin Rental Agreement” dated January 2022 (“the rental agreement”).
The rental agreement provided for weekly rental of $210.00, a minimum 12- month term and a requirement that either party give not less than 3 weeks’ notice in writing to end the agreement.
The rental agreement includes the address of the location of the cabin. It does not specifically state who owns the land where the cabin is to be sited.
The cabin was located on land owned by Mrs Jarvis and was delivered to and collected from the site by Waikato Cabins (or its contractors).
Under clause 7.6 of the rental agreement, Mrs Jarvis agrees to allow Waikato Cabins access to the Cabin for inspections every 3 to 6 months and for repairs. .
Mrs Jarvis has applied for a refund of a bond paid.
Waikato Cabins says that the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) does not apply to the rental of its cabins.
The first issue I must consider, therefore, is whether the RTA applies to this rental of a cabin on land owned by the renter. If the RTA does not apply, then I cannot make any further orders in this matter.

Was the Cabin rental arrangement a tenancy for residential premises?

Section 77(1) RTA 1986 provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Section 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. The terms ‘premises’ and ‘residential premises’ are defined as: premises includes (a) any part of the premises; and (b) any land and appurtences, other than facilities; and (c) any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land. 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.
Waikato Cabins argued that the RTA does not apply because the cabins are not intended as a place of residence. They refer to clause 7.1 which specifically states: “...Without limiting that the Hirer agrees and confirms that the Cabin shall not be used as a principal residence, being the primary location where an individual, couple, or family household lives most of the time.”
Waikato Cabins also state the cabins are defined as a commercial chattel in the rental agreement.
The argument seems to be that the cabin does not meet the definition of “residential premises” as it was not intended for occupation as a “principal residence”. That is not the statutory definition. Based on the evidence before me the cabin was used as a place of residence.
Mrs Jarvis says the cabins are self-contained. She distinguished them from a sleep-out type arrangement next to a principal dwelling. She noted that the cabin was rented for more than a year. Her daughter lived in the Cabin on land Mrs Jarvis owned.
However, before I can consider whether the cabin is a “residential premise”, I first must decide if it meets the definition of “premises” under the RTA. If it does not, the RTA does not apply and I do not have jurisdiction to consider the application.
In Renters v Supplier [2021] NZTT 4312901, the adjudicator stated:
The definition of ‘premises’ specifically includes a caravan however it also says that the caravan (or mobile home or other means of shelter) must be “placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land”.
Leasing a caravan to a tenant/renter to put on a site in a caravan park, where the renter enters into a separate agreement for the site with the caravan park owners, has been found by the Tribunal to be a contract only to provide use of the caravan and not to fall within the RTA: Heslin v Caravans2rent Limited [2020] NZTT Christchurch 4234218.
In the Heslin case the Tribunal found that the definition of ‘premises’ in the RTA relies on the means of shelter, which in that case was also a caravan, being linked to an intention to occupy “...that land’ as provided in the RTA definition of ‘premises’. The adjudicator found in that case that a key factor in a residential tenancy is a legal right to occupy and control the land where the shelter is situated.
Similar reasoning also led the Tribunal to conclude that a relocatable cabin hired from one party and then placed on a site provided by another person does not come within the definition of ‘premises’ in section 2(1) RTA; see Pacific Property Rentals Limited v Pearson [2019] NZTT Rotorua 4211673, 4211460. The rental of the cabin did not come with any right to use or occupy land.
This contrasts with decisions in which the Act has been found to apply where the tenant/renter rents a caravan from the landlord on land either owned or controlled by the landlord (Goodwin v Ahern & Pask [2021] NZTT Thames 4272553, Moody v Kennelly [2014] NZTT Christchurch, 14/2824; Director General of Housing Corp v Drew Developments Ltd [1991] NZTT Otahuhu, 1837/91).
In this case, [The respondent/s] has no interest or control over the land where the caravan was placed. It has no legal right to enter onto that land (except as provided in clause 13 of the rental agreement) and arguably could not fulfil many of the responsibilities that landlords have under the RTA such as conducting inspections of the premises or ensuring that the structure on the land has any required permits or consents for residential use. (This latter responsibility is that of the landowner).
I have set out the decision in Renter v Supplier in detail because the material facts and law are the same as the current case. Applying that decision, I find that the cabin in this case does not meet the definition of “premises” under the RTA.
After the hearing, Mrs Jarvis contacted the Tribunal and asked registry to refer me to clause 7.6 of the rental agreement, as evidence that Waikato Cabins could enter the site to carry out inspections. It is not appropriate for the Tribunal to receive or consider submissions made by one party after the hearing. However, I had considered clause 7.6 in any event, and it does not alter my decision. At best, the clause gives Waikato Cabins a contractual right to inspect the cabin, it does not give them any interest or control over the land on which the cabin is situated.
I am satisfied that the RTA does not apply in this case.
The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Order

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not apply.
The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing by telephone.
Mrs Jarvis has made this application to the Tribunal. She rented a transportable cabin from Waikato Cabins under a “Cabin Rental Agreement” dated January 2022 (“the rental agreement”).
The rental agreement provided for weekly rental of $210.00, a minimum 12- month term and a requirement that either party give not less than 3 weeks’ notice in writing to end the agreement.
The rental agreement includes the address of the location of the cabin. It does not specifically state who owns the land where the cabin is to be sited.
The cabin was located on land owned by Mrs Jarvis and was delivered to and collected from the site by Waikato Cabins (or its contractors).
Under clause 7.6 of the rental agreement, Mrs Jarvis agrees to allow Waikato Cabins access to the Cabin for inspections every 3 to 6 months and for repairs. .
Mrs Jarvis has applied for a refund of a bond paid.
Waikato Cabins says that the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) does not apply to the rental of its cabins.
The first issue I must consider, therefore, is whether the RTA applies to this rental of a cabin on land owned by the renter. If the RTA does not apply, then I cannot make any further orders in this matter.

Was the Cabin rental arrangement a tenancy for residential premises?

Section 77(1) RTA 1986 provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Section 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. The terms ‘premises’ and ‘residential premises’ are defined as: premises includes (a) any part of the premises; and (b) any land and appurtences, other than facilities; and (c) any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land. 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.
Waikato Cabins argued that the RTA does not apply because the cabins are not intended as a place of residence. They refer to clause 7.1 which specifically states: “...Without limiting that the Hirer agrees and confirms that the Cabin shall not be used as a principal residence, being the primary location where an individual, couple, or family household lives most of the time.”
Waikato Cabins also state the cabins are defined as a commercial chattel in the rental agreement.
The argument seems to be that the cabin does not meet the definition of “residential premises” as it was not intended for occupation as a “principal residence”. That is not the statutory definition. Based on the evidence before me the cabin was used as a place of residence.
Mrs Jarvis says the cabins are self-contained. She distinguished them from a sleep-out type arrangement next to a principal dwelling. She noted that the cabin was rented for more than a year. Her daughter lived in the Cabin on land Mrs Jarvis owned.
However, before I can consider whether the cabin is a “residential premise”, I first must decide if it meets the definition of “premises” under the RTA. If it does not, the RTA does not apply and I do not have jurisdiction to consider the application.
In Renters v Supplier [2021] NZTT 4312901, the adjudicator stated:
The definition of ‘premises’ specifically includes a caravan however it also says that the caravan (or mobile home or other means of shelter) must be “placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land”.
Leasing a caravan to a tenant/renter to put on a site in a caravan park, where the renter enters into a separate agreement for the site with the caravan park owners, has been found by the Tribunal to be a contract only to provide use of the caravan and not to fall within the RTA: Heslin v Caravans2rent Limited [2020] NZTT Christchurch 4234218.
In the Heslin case the Tribunal found that the definition of ‘premises’ in the RTA relies on the means of shelter, which in that case was also a caravan, being linked to an intention to occupy “...that land’ as provided in the RTA definition of ‘premises’. The adjudicator found in that case that a key factor in a residential tenancy is a legal right to occupy and control the land where the shelter is situated.
Similar reasoning also led the Tribunal to conclude that a relocatable cabin hired from one party and then placed on a site provided by another person does not come within the definition of ‘premises’ in section 2(1) RTA; see Pacific Property Rentals Limited v Pearson [2019] NZTT Rotorua 4211673, 4211460. The rental of the cabin did not come with any right to use or occupy land.
This contrasts with decisions in which the Act has been found to apply where the tenant/renter rents a caravan from the landlord on land either owned or controlled by the landlord (Goodwin v Ahern & Pask [2021] NZTT Thames 4272553, Moody v Kennelly [2014] NZTT Christchurch, 14/2824; Director General of Housing Corp v Drew Developments Ltd [1991] NZTT Otahuhu, 1837/91).
In this case, [The respondent/s] has no interest or control over the land where the caravan was placed. It has no legal right to enter onto that land (except as provided in clause 13 of the rental agreement) and arguably could not fulfil many of the responsibilities that landlords have under the RTA such as conducting inspections of the premises or ensuring that the structure on the land has any required permits or consents for residential use. (This latter responsibility is that of the landowner).
I have set out the decision in Renter v Supplier in detail because the material facts and law are the same as the current case. Applying that decision, I find that the cabin in this case does not meet the definition of “premises” under the RTA.
After the hearing, Mrs Jarvis contacted the Tribunal and asked registry to refer me to clause 7.6 of the rental agreement, as evidence that Waikato Cabins could enter the site to carry out inspections. It is not appropriate for the Tribunal to receive or consider submissions made by one party after the hearing. However, I had considered clause 7.6 in any event, and it does not alter my decision. At best, the clause gives Waikato Cabins a contractual right to inspect the cabin, it does not give them any interest or control over the land on which the cabin is situated.
I am satisfied that the RTA does not apply in this case.
The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4786877 — Tenancy dispute at 411 Marshmeadow Road, Puketaha, RD 6, Hamilton 3286

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4786877 — Tenancy dispute at 411 Marshmeadow Road, Puketaha, RD 6, Hamilton 3286

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the Cabin rental arrangement a tenancy for residential premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Was the Cabin rental arrangement a tenancy for residential premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions