What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4887001 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 4887001?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4887001?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4887001?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10520483-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4887001 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 4887001?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4887001?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4887001?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10520483-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4887001 — Boarding House

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenant’s application has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. The landlord did not.
I am satisfied that the landlord had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend. I made several attempts to reach the landlord by telephone and the phone keep ringing until it cut off. There was no ability to leave a voice mail.
The tenant applied for a declaration as to jurisdiction and for compensation/damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Jurisdiction
The tenant was under the belief, despite the flat sharing agreement he signed, that he was a tenant covered by the RTA.

Is this a boarding house tenancy?

Section 66 B of the RTA defines a boarding house as “residential premises (a) containing 1 or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants of the boarding house; and (b) occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time”.
The tenant gave evidence the landlord is one of two adult children of the owner that resides in the premise, and she lets the other rooms out to her sibling and two other flatmates. He stated that there was only ever 4 persons living in the house at one time.
I am satisfied that the landlord never envisaged setting up a boarding house and that s66B of the RTA does not apply to the relationship between the landlord/head tenant and the tenant. The law and whether the section 5(1)(n) exception in the RTA applies
Section 4 of the Act reads: “This Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.” Prima facie, the premises at Unit/Flat 6, 2 Sunnydale Place, Oteha, Auckland (the premises) were used for residential purposes and as such as a starting point is covered by the Act, unless a section 5 exemption applies, and the parties did not contract back into the Act.
“Tenancy” is defined in section 2 of the Act as follows: “tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy ....”.
Section 5 of the Act contains the exceptions to the Act. Relevantly, s 5(1)(n) of the Act provides: “...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 tenant confirmed that for the duration of the tenancy, the adult child of the owner of the premise and her sibling lived in the house and shared kitchen, dining, lounge and laundry facilities with the other tenants. He also confirmed that the house was one single dwelling and the head tenant/landlord’s areas of the house were not separate to that of the tenant. The tenant rented a bedroom and use of the shared facilities.
Section 2 of the Act, defines a landlord as “in relation to any residential premises that are subject to a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement...”
In reality, the landlord granted the right to the tenant as a flatmate to occupy a bedroom and to share the other household facilities with her, her sibling and up to 2 other flatmates at any one time.
Section 8 of the RTA states: “(1) Nothing in any of sections 5 to 7 shall prevent the parties to a tenancy that would otherwise be excluded from this Act by virtue of any of the provisions of those sections, being a tenancy of any premises used or intended to be used for residential premises, from agreeing in writing that all or any of the provisions of this Act shall apply in respect of the tenancy, either without modification or with such modifications as they may so agree. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), any such agreement may confer upon the Tribunal, in respect of the tenancy, all or any of the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal by this Act in respect of tenancies to which this Act applies”.
The nature of the relationship between the tenant and the landlord/head tenant has been accurately recorded in the flat sharing agreement the tenant signed. This agreement makes no mention of the parties having agreed to contract into the RTA.
Section 10 of the Act states: “Where, in any proceedings before the Tribunal, any party contends that this Act does not apply in respect of any tenancy of any residential premises, it shall be for that party to establish the facts upon which it is contended that this Act does not apply.”
The tenant has proven, that the exception set out in s 5(1)(n) of the RTA applies by proving the landlord/head tenant continued to use the premises as her principal place of residence during the flatmate’s tenure, that s66B of the RTA does not apply and the parties have not contracted into all of part of the RTA.
Therefore, the tenant’s claim that he was a tenant that is covered by the provisions of the Act must fail. Conclusion
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter and accordingly the claim is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in his application. Therefore, his application for reimbursement of the filing fee is denied.
Having failed in his jurisdictional argument in the Tenancy Tribunal, the tenant can take his claim for refund of his bond to the Disputes Tribunal.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenant’s application has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. The landlord did not.
I am satisfied that the landlord had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend. I made several attempts to reach the landlord by telephone and the phone keep ringing until it cut off. There was no ability to leave a voice mail.
The tenant applied for a declaration as to jurisdiction and for compensation/damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Jurisdiction
The tenant was under the belief, despite the flat sharing agreement he signed, that he was a tenant covered by the RTA.

Is this a boarding house tenancy?

Section 66 B of the RTA defines a boarding house as “residential premises (a) containing 1 or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants of the boarding house; and (b) occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time”.
The tenant gave evidence the landlord is one of two adult children of the owner that resides in the premise, and she lets the other rooms out to her sibling and two other flatmates. He stated that there was only ever 4 persons living in the house at one time.
I am satisfied that the landlord never envisaged setting up a boarding house and that s66B of the RTA does not apply to the relationship between the landlord/head tenant and the tenant. The law and whether the section 5(1)(n) exception in the RTA applies
Section 4 of the Act reads: “This Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.” Prima facie, the premises at Unit/Flat 6, 2 Sunnydale Place, Oteha, Auckland (the premises) were used for residential purposes and as such as a starting point is covered by the Act, unless a section 5 exemption applies, and the parties did not contract back into the Act.
“Tenancy” is defined in section 2 of the Act as follows: “tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy ....”.
Section 5 of the Act contains the exceptions to the Act. Relevantly, s 5(1)(n) of the Act provides: “...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 tenant confirmed that for the duration of the tenancy, the adult child of the owner of the premise and her sibling lived in the house and shared kitchen, dining, lounge and laundry facilities with the other tenants. He also confirmed that the house was one single dwelling and the head tenant/landlord’s areas of the house were not separate to that of the tenant. The tenant rented a bedroom and use of the shared facilities.
Section 2 of the Act, defines a landlord as “in relation to any residential premises that are subject to a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement...”
In reality, the landlord granted the right to the tenant as a flatmate to occupy a bedroom and to share the other household facilities with her, her sibling and up to 2 other flatmates at any one time.
Section 8 of the RTA states: “(1) Nothing in any of sections 5 to 7 shall prevent the parties to a tenancy that would otherwise be excluded from this Act by virtue of any of the provisions of those sections, being a tenancy of any premises used or intended to be used for residential premises, from agreeing in writing that all or any of the provisions of this Act shall apply in respect of the tenancy, either without modification or with such modifications as they may so agree. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), any such agreement may confer upon the Tribunal, in respect of the tenancy, all or any of the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal by this Act in respect of tenancies to which this Act applies”.
The nature of the relationship between the tenant and the landlord/head tenant has been accurately recorded in the flat sharing agreement the tenant signed. This agreement makes no mention of the parties having agreed to contract into the RTA.
Section 10 of the Act states: “Where, in any proceedings before the Tribunal, any party contends that this Act does not apply in respect of any tenancy of any residential premises, it shall be for that party to establish the facts upon which it is contended that this Act does not apply.”
The tenant has proven, that the exception set out in s 5(1)(n) of the RTA applies by proving the landlord/head tenant continued to use the premises as her principal place of residence during the flatmate’s tenure, that s66B of the RTA does not apply and the parties have not contracted into all of part of the RTA.
Therefore, the tenant’s claim that he was a tenant that is covered by the provisions of the Act must fail. Conclusion
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter and accordingly the claim is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in his application. Therefore, his application for reimbursement of the filing fee is denied.
Having failed in his jurisdictional argument in the Tenancy Tribunal, the tenant can take his claim for refund of his bond to the Disputes Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4887001 — Boarding House

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4887001 — Boarding House

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is this a boarding house tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is this a boarding house tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions