What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4870821 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4870821?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4870821?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4870821?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10503159-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4870821 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4870821?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4870821?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4870821?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10503159-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

47 Newbliss Crescent, East Tamaki Heights, Auckland 2016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4870821 — Boarding House

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by teleconference.

The applicant has applied for a bond refund of $760.00.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The respondent claimed that this was not a residential tenancy but a flatmate or boarding situation.

The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute that exists between a landlord and a tenant and relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies. See section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”).

Section 5 states that the Act shall not apply in certain cases which include “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” see section 5(1)(n) of the Act.

The parties agreed that the room was advertised on Roomies a website for flatmates and rooms.

The applicant rented a room at the premises owned by the respondent from 1 March 2024 to 21 April 2024 at a rate of $280.00 per week. The respondent is the owner of the premises.

The respondent stated that she lived in the four-bedroom home in Auckland and rented out two rooms. She stated that she lived in one of the other bedrooms and that the fourth bedroom was for her father when he came to Auckland.

The home including the applicant’s bedroom was furnished by the respondent and all occupants shared the living areas.

Both parties agreed that the respondent had a sick father in Cambridge but disputed the amount of time she spent there.

The applicant stated that initially the respondent lived in Cambridge and only returned to Auckland in weekends but then returned to live in Auckland for work.

The respondent stated that she spent time in Cambridge caring for her sick father and then returned home.

Having heard the evidence of both parties I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that although the owner also spent time in Cambridge, the premises continued to be used principally as her place of residence.

There is no written tenancy agreement and neither party provided copies of any written communication between them regarding the terms of the arrangement.

Having considered the evidence of both parties in this case including the room being advertised on Roomies, no written agreement, evidence that the owner continued to use the premises during the tenancy as her residence although also visiting Cambridge; I find on the balance of probabilities that the nature of the relationship between the parties was a boarding relationship which as this is not a boarding house is not covered by the Act.

In the alternative even if there is a landlord tenant relationship between the parties, and the respondent is considered to be a landlord; the tenancy is excluded by section 5(1)(n) of the Act as the premises have continued to be used principally as a place of residence by the owner.

The application is dismissed.

The parties discussed matters at the end of the hearing and it was agreed that the respondent will refund $120.00 to the applicant following the hearing.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by teleconference.
The applicant has applied for a bond refund of $760.00.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The respondent claimed that this was not a residential tenancy but a flatmate or boarding situation.
The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute that exists between a landlord and a tenant and relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies. See section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”).
Section 5 states that the Act shall not apply in certain cases which include “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” see section 5(1)(n) of the Act.
The parties agreed that the room was advertised on Roomies a website for flatmates and rooms.
The applicant rented a room at the premises owned by the respondent from 1 March 2024 to 21 April 2024 at a rate of $280.00 per week. The respondent is the owner of the premises.
The respondent stated that she lived in the four-bedroom home in Auckland and rented out two rooms. She stated that she lived in one of the other bedrooms and that the fourth bedroom was for her father when he came to Auckland.
The home including the applicant’s bedroom was furnished by the respondent and all occupants shared the living areas.
Both parties agreed that the respondent had a sick father in Cambridge but disputed the amount of time she spent there.
The applicant stated that initially the respondent lived in Cambridge and only returned to Auckland in weekends but then returned to live in Auckland for work.
The respondent stated that she spent time in Cambridge caring for her sick father and then returned home.
Having heard the evidence of both parties I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that although the owner also spent time in Cambridge, the premises continued to be used principally as her place of residence.
There is no written tenancy agreement and neither party provided copies of any written communication between them regarding the terms of the arrangement.
Having considered the evidence of both parties in this case including the room being advertised on Roomies, no written agreement, evidence that the owner continued to use the premises during the tenancy as her residence although also visiting Cambridge; I find on the balance of probabilities that the nature of the relationship between the parties was a boarding relationship which as this is not a boarding house is not covered by the Act.
In the alternative even if there is a landlord tenant relationship between the parties, and the respondent is considered to be a landlord; the tenancy is excluded by section 5(1)(n) of the Act as the premises have continued to be used principally as a place of residence by the owner.
The application is dismissed.
The parties discussed matters at the end of the hearing and it was agreed that the respondent will refund $120.00 to the applicant following the hearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4870821 — Boarding House at 47 Newbliss Crescent, East Tamaki Heights, Auckland 2016

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4870821 — Boarding House at 47 Newbliss Crescent, East Tamaki Heights, Auckland 2016

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions