What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4880362 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear

How much money was awarded in case 4880362?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4880362?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4880362?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10444832-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4880362 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear

How much money was awarded in case 4880362?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4880362?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4880362?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10444832-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

14A Hinekohu Street, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4880362 — Boarding House

Order

The application is dismissed as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that 3 anti-social behaviour notices have been served on the tenant (see s.55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
This hearing was called to solely consider the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the application.
The parties entered into a boarding house tenancy agreement in August 2023.
Despite the agreement, the evidence disclosed that this is not a boarding house tenancy. By definition, S.66B RTA requires the premises to be occupied or intended to be occupied by at least 6 tenants at any one time if it is to be a boarding house. In Four Seasons Realty Limited v Matchitt (2023) NZDC 21359 the District Court held that the time for considering the number of tenants was during the course of the tenancy.
The evidence as to the number of tenants was confused at best. The landlord and tenant said that there were 3 tenants living inside the house at number 14A Hinekohu Street Auckland (“the premises”).The landlord and his son also lived at the premises and that a further 2 tenants lived in a caravan outside.
The landlord and his son are not tenants. That leaves a maximum of 5 tenants, irrespective of whether the tenants in the caravan can be considered as tenants or not. In light of the potential maximum number of tenants present, I am not required to consider if the residents in the caravan can be considered tenants.
Section 4 RTA provides that the RTA will apply to every tenancy for residential purposes, except as specifically provided. Section 5 RTA contains the exclusions. For the purposes of this hearing the exclusion at s.5(1)(n) RTA is relevant.
Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides that the RTA will not apply to a tenancy; • Which is not a boarding house; and • Where the premises 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 or owner’s family.
This is not a boarding house.
The accepted evidence from both parties was that this was a 4 bedroom house. The landlord and his son occupied one bedroom at the premises. Tenants occupied three other bedrooms.
The tenant said that he did not have access to the shared areas of the premises including the kitchen, dining room, bathroom and laundry. Those areas were locked by the landlord, with only the landlord and his son having access. The tenants were provided with a key to the next door house, number 16 Hinekohu Street, Auckland, which was also owned by the landlord. They were to use the facilities at that address. The tenant said that he used public toilets.
The landlord said that the premises were his sole place of residence.
The question that I have to decide when considering jurisdiction is whether the premises are used principally as a place of residence for the landlord?
The undisputed evidence is that only three of the four bedrooms are used by tenants with the balance of the premises, including kitchen, lounge, bathroom, laundry and one bedroom all solely used by the landlord. The tenanted rooms were not self-contained. I find as a result that the premises are principally used as a place of residence by the landlord. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction and the application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.
Both parties retain the right to make an application to other jurisdictions to have their concerns dealt with.
Both parties applied for name suppression.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and his application for suppression is dismissed. I have made no order for suppression of the details of the address as I consider that some of the matters raised during this hearing should be available to the public.
The tenant has been successful in this matter and the tenant name is suppressed.

Order

The application is dismissed as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that 3 anti-social behaviour notices have been served on the tenant (see s.55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
This hearing was called to solely consider the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the application.
The parties entered into a boarding house tenancy agreement in August 2023.
Despite the agreement, the evidence disclosed that this is not a boarding house tenancy. By definition, S.66B RTA requires the premises to be occupied or intended to be occupied by at least 6 tenants at any one time if it is to be a boarding house. In Four Seasons Realty Limited v Matchitt (2023) NZDC 21359 the District Court held that the time for considering the number of tenants was during the course of the tenancy.
The evidence as to the number of tenants was confused at best. The landlord and tenant said that there were 3 tenants living inside the house at number 14A Hinekohu Street Auckland (“the premises”).The landlord and his son also lived at the premises and that a further 2 tenants lived in a caravan outside.
The landlord and his son are not tenants. That leaves a maximum of 5 tenants, irrespective of whether the tenants in the caravan can be considered as tenants or not. In light of the potential maximum number of tenants present, I am not required to consider if the residents in the caravan can be considered tenants.
Section 4 RTA provides that the RTA will apply to every tenancy for residential purposes, except as specifically provided. Section 5 RTA contains the exclusions. For the purposes of this hearing the exclusion at s.5(1)(n) RTA is relevant.
Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides that the RTA will not apply to a tenancy; • Which is not a boarding house; and • Where the premises 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 or owner’s family.
This is not a boarding house.
The accepted evidence from both parties was that this was a 4 bedroom house. The landlord and his son occupied one bedroom at the premises. Tenants occupied three other bedrooms.
The tenant said that he did not have access to the shared areas of the premises including the kitchen, dining room, bathroom and laundry. Those areas were locked by the landlord, with only the landlord and his son having access. The tenants were provided with a key to the next door house, number 16 Hinekohu Street, Auckland, which was also owned by the landlord. They were to use the facilities at that address. The tenant said that he used public toilets.
The landlord said that the premises were his sole place of residence.
The question that I have to decide when considering jurisdiction is whether the premises are used principally as a place of residence for the landlord?
The undisputed evidence is that only three of the four bedrooms are used by tenants with the balance of the premises, including kitchen, lounge, bathroom, laundry and one bedroom all solely used by the landlord. The tenanted rooms were not self-contained. I find as a result that the premises are principally used as a place of residence by the landlord. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction and the application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.
Both parties retain the right to make an application to other jurisdictions to have their concerns dealt with.
Both parties applied for name suppression.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and his application for suppression is dismissed. I have made no order for suppression of the details of the address as I consider that some of the matters raised during this hearing should be available to the public.
The tenant has been successful in this matter and the tenant name is suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4880362 — Boarding House at 14A Hinekohu Street, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4880362 — Boarding House at 14A Hinekohu Street, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions