What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4886432 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4886432?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4886432?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4886432?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11373161-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4886432 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4886432?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4886432?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4886432?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11373161-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4886432 — Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address.
The application is struck out. The Residential Tenancies Act does not apply to the circumstances of this case and there is no jurisdiction for the Tribunal to hear the present application.

Reasons

There was an initial video hearing of this application on 15 October 2024, at which time the only party who attended the hearing was [Tenant 1], along with the Spanish interpreter, Ms Arbulu. The landlords did not answer the phone or attend that video hearing on 15 October 2024. During that hearing, [Tenant 1] disclosed there were additional tenant parties involved who had not been named in the application, so the hearing was stopped and adjourned, for the other parties to be joined to the application.
The second video hearing was held on 23 January 2025. [The tenant/s], for the tenants, and [Landlord 1], representing both landlords, all attended the hearing, along with the Spanish interpreter, Ms Arbulu.
The tenants have applied for refund bond, breach of quiet enjoyment, unlawful entry and exemplary damages following the end of the tenancy. There was an initial issue to be determined as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claims. The landlord asserted the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claims. Background
[Tenant 1], his sister, [Tenant 2] and [Tenant 3] all live in Argentina. They travelled to New Zealand in 2024 and obtained working visas to pick fruit during their time in New Zealand. They did not wish to live in orchard accommodation that was offered to them and sought a place to stay which was closer to other amenities. They contacted [The landlord/s] about their house, and signed a written agreement entitled “Vacation Short Term Rental Contract” (“the contract”), that purported to offer the property on a short-term holiday lease from 13 February 2024 until 7 April 2024, a period of just over 7 weeks, to stay at [The landlord/s] house. The contract set out the arrival date and time the tenants could arrive at the property, and the departure date and time they were to leave the property. The contract further provided for the tenants to pay rent of $600.00/week, plus $50.00/week towards power and wifi and a deposit/bond of $1,200.00 in case of any damage. The contract referred to the tenants as ‘guest/occupier’ and discussed the parties going to arbitration in the event of any dispute.
The parties agreed that [The landlord/s] could leave their belongings in various wardrobes and cupboards in the house and that [The landlord/s] could use the laundry facilities inside the house, during the tenancy. [The landlord/s] stayed in a caravan several metres from the main house where the tenants stayed and [Landlord 1] continued building a sleepout by the garage during the tenancy also.
[Landlord 1] confirmed they were aware that the tenants had working visas to pick fruit during their time in New Zealand. He said that the main house, where the tenants stayed during their tenancy, was their principal residence where he and his wife lived full time for around 7 months of the year. [Landlord 1] explained that, for the remainer of the year, around 5 months or so, he and his wife usually made their house available to let out for short term holiday lets to holiday makers for short periods. [Landlord 1] said that, whilst they usually only let the house for holiday lets short term, this situation was a bit different, as [Tenant 2] had approached them to let the house for the period agreed to, indicating she did not want to stay in the orchard accommodation that she had been offered by her employer. So, [Landlord 1] said they agreed to this on a short-term basis, as he and his wife could remain on the property in the caravan during the tenants’ stay at their house, keep their belongings in the house, use the laundry facilities and he could continue with his building work on a sleepout on the property.
The tenants confirmed they understood it was a short-term rental, that they agreed for [The landlord/s] to leave their belongings inside the house and use the laundry inside the house, during their stay. There was no evidence of any intention on the part of the tenants to stay for any longer than the short-term rental agreed to with [The landlord/s], nor on the part of [The landlord/s] to extend the short-term rental agreed to. In fact, [Tenant 2] said she left New Zealand to return to home to Argentina the day after leaving the property on 7 April 2024. [Tenant 1] returned to Argentina from New Zealand on 7 August 2024, also leaving the property on 7 April 2024 at the end of the contract term to travel elsewhere before returning home to Argentina.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims?

The Tribunal must firstly determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear this application.
Section 4 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that the Act applies to every ‘tenancy’ for residential purposes except where section 5 RTA excludes it.
Section 2(1) RTA defines ‘tenancy’ as, in relation to any residential premises, the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent.
‘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.
Section 5 RTA sets out the circumstances when the Act does not apply. Unless one of the exclusions applies, on the face of it the Tribunal will have jurisdiction to determine the residential tenancy rights and obligations of a party according to the provisions of the Act.
Section 5(1)(k) RTA provides that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction where the premises are intended to provide temporary or transient accommodation, being accommodation that is ordinarily provided for periods of less than 28 days at a time and are subject to an agreement that has been entered into for the purpose of providing temporary or transient accommodation that continues to be provided under the agreement.
Section 5(1)(m) RTA provides that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction where the premises are let for the tenant’s holiday purposes.
Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction 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 owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family. Evidence
[Landlord 1] confirmed they were aware the tenants had working visas to pick fruit while they were travelling in New Zealand. The tenants were clear they had told the landlord this and provided proof of this. Thus, I am not satisfied that the exclusion relating to the premises being let for the tenant’s holiday purposes applies to this situation.
Whilst [Landlord 1] indicated that they left belongings at the house, used the laundry inside the house during the tenancy, and lived in a caravan several metres away from the house during the tenancy, I find that, even though [The landlord/s] lived on another part of the property in a caravan, it was the tenants that had principal use of the house during the tenancy, not [The landlord/s]. Thus, I am not satisfied there is sufficient evidence to show that the exclusion relating to the premises continuing to be used during the tenancy principally as a place of residence by the landlord or owner applies in this situation either.
In relation to the exclusion from jurisdiction under section 5(1)(k) RTA, I accept [Landlord 1]’s evidence that, he and his wife lived in the house full time for around 7 months each year, and for around 5 months of each year, the premises (their house) was usually only available to be let to holiday makers for short stays at the house. From his evidence, I accept it is likely that [The landlord/s] intended to let out their house to holiday makers for short term lets ordinarily (or usually) in the 5-month period they made their houses available for short term holiday lets, for less than 28 days at a time. As such, I find the premises were intended to provide temporary or transient accommodation, which was accommodation ordinarily provided for periods of less than 28 days at a time.
Here, the parties agreed to a contract period of just over 7 weeks and entered into the contract referred to above, which stipulated it was a vacation short term rental, and had fixed times to arrive at the property and leave the property, similar to a motel or Airbnb check in and check out arrangement. In this contract, I note the tenants were referred to as ‘guest/occupier’ and the contract was referred to within the body of the contract as a ‘holiday/rental home contract’. The contract period was from 13 February 2024 to 7 April 2024, and was not intended to be extended by either party. Thus, the contract only ever provided for temporary accommodation. This was not disputed by the tenants, though they indicated they did not fully understand the implications of signing this contract described as a vacation short term rental.
The Oxford Languages dictionary defines ‘temporary’ as “lasting for only a limited period; not permanent.”
Given the evidence of the contract for a ‘vacation short term rental’ between the parties, which was to provide the tenants with accommodation on a short, fixed period, while they picked fruit on a working visa temporarily, I find the premises were subject to an agreement that was entered into for the purpose of providing temporary or transient accommodation that continued to be provided for the period of the tenancy.
Therefore, the tenancy meets the exclusion set out in section 5(1)(k) RTA and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claims.
As the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claims, the tenants’ claims are struck out.
The tenants can obtain legal advice about other jurisdictions which may address their claims, like the Disputes Tribunal, for example. Filing fee
As the tenants have not been successful, I do not award them the filing fee. Suppression
All parties requested name suppression.
Section 95A(4) RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
As I have determined that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claims and the claims are struck out, I find the parties’ interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their names. Therefore, I order that the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4886432 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4886432 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions