What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4890563 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4890563?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4890563?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4890563?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10704775-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4890563 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4890563?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4890563?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4890563?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10704775-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4890563 — Boarding House

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties names and identifying details.
By way of declaration, it is noted that the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the relationship or agreement between the parties.
The application is struck out.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted via teleconference. This hearing was a continuation after the need for a Punjabi interpreter was raised at the first hearing.
A court arranged interpreter was arranged but at the time of the hearing the three calls made to him all went unanswered. Given the other calls went answered I had no reason to suspect a telephony issue on the Tribunal side.
With the agreement of both parties, the applicant joined a friend more comfortable in both languages so that the hearing could continue. The assistance of the friend is much appreciated.
This hearing was convened to consider jurisdiction only.
The tenancy was established informally via a series of messages. It commenced 21 April 2024 and ended 4 May 2024.
The premises is a four-bedroom house with two bathrooms. The owners and their two children reside in two bedrooms, the tenant and his family (wife and two children) resided in the other two bedroom. The owners had the use of an ensuite bathroom, all others shared the second bathroom.
The four bedrooms were on the same level. One kitchen was used by all occupants.
The respondents challenged the jurisdiction, claiming it was excluded from this Tribunal as it is their family home.

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

The Tribunal’s general jurisdiction, under s77(1) of the RTA is to: “...determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that— (a)exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b)relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time.”
Section 2 RTA provides that a “landlord” and “tenant” are respectively grantor and grantee of a tenancy. “...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...” rent, means any money, goods, services, or other valuable consideration in the nature of rent to be paid or supplied under a tenancy agreement by the tenant; but does not include any sum of money payable or paid by way of bond”
Section 5 of the RTA details exclusions to the RTA. Section 5(n) specifically excludes arrangements where the premises are being used for residence by the landlord or family. This section envisages owners of a home renting out their spare rooms in a flatmate or boarding type situation.
The exception to this exception is if the premise is a boarding house. A boarding house is defined in section 66B of the RTA as residential premises containing one or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants of the boarding house that is occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least six tenants at any one time. This is clearly not a boarding house situation as there was no intention or actuality of the landlords having six other flatmates/boarders at any one time.
A ‘flatmate’ resides in the premises by way of a licence from the owner of the premises In Musson v Dobrisek & Ors DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006-032-36, 5 May 2006, Judge Broadmore considered the definition of a flatmate. He states (at para [22]: “By ‘flatmates’ I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, all occupants are on the same footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens.”
As foreshadowed at the hearing, having considered this situation I am satisfied that it clearly falls within the exception detailed in s 5(n) of the RTA. This is the landlords’ home, and they rented out the spare rooms to the tenant and his family to reside in for a period. Accordingly, this was a boarding or flatmate arrangement, which is not one the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction over.
Therefore, if the tenants wish to progress their claim, they need to file an application in the Disputes Tribunal. Suppression
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to suppress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion if in the public interest to do so. The tenants sought suppression in their application and although he was not successful, as the application was genuinely mistakenly filed, I consider it just to suppress the parties’ details.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties names and identifying details.
By way of declaration, it is noted that the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the relationship or agreement between the parties.
The application is struck out.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted via teleconference. This hearing was a continuation after the need for a Punjabi interpreter was raised at the first hearing.
A court arranged interpreter was arranged but at the time of the hearing the three calls made to him all went unanswered. Given the other calls went answered I had no reason to suspect a telephony issue on the Tribunal side.
With the agreement of both parties, the applicant joined a friend more comfortable in both languages so that the hearing could continue. The assistance of the friend is much appreciated.
This hearing was convened to consider jurisdiction only.
The tenancy was established informally via a series of messages. It commenced 21 April 2024 and ended 4 May 2024.
The premises is a four-bedroom house with two bathrooms. The owners and their two children reside in two bedrooms, the tenant and his family (wife and two children) resided in the other two bedroom. The owners had the use of an ensuite bathroom, all others shared the second bathroom.
The four bedrooms were on the same level. One kitchen was used by all occupants.
The respondents challenged the jurisdiction, claiming it was excluded from this Tribunal as it is their family home.

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

The Tribunal’s general jurisdiction, under s77(1) of the RTA is to: “...determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that— (a)exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b)relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time.”
Section 2 RTA provides that a “landlord” and “tenant” are respectively grantor and grantee of a tenancy. “...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...” rent, means any money, goods, services, or other valuable consideration in the nature of rent to be paid or supplied under a tenancy agreement by the tenant; but does not include any sum of money payable or paid by way of bond”
Section 5 of the RTA details exclusions to the RTA. Section 5(n) specifically excludes arrangements where the premises are being used for residence by the landlord or family. This section envisages owners of a home renting out their spare rooms in a flatmate or boarding type situation.
The exception to this exception is if the premise is a boarding house. A boarding house is defined in section 66B of the RTA as residential premises containing one or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants of the boarding house that is occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least six tenants at any one time. This is clearly not a boarding house situation as there was no intention or actuality of the landlords having six other flatmates/boarders at any one time.
A ‘flatmate’ resides in the premises by way of a licence from the owner of the premises In Musson v Dobrisek & Ors DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006-032-36, 5 May 2006, Judge Broadmore considered the definition of a flatmate. He states (at para [22]: “By ‘flatmates’ I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, all occupants are on the same footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens.”
As foreshadowed at the hearing, having considered this situation I am satisfied that it clearly falls within the exception detailed in s 5(n) of the RTA. This is the landlords’ home, and they rented out the spare rooms to the tenant and his family to reside in for a period. Accordingly, this was a boarding or flatmate arrangement, which is not one the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction over.
Therefore, if the tenants wish to progress their claim, they need to file an application in the Disputes Tribunal. Suppression
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to suppress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion if in the public interest to do so. The tenants sought suppression in their application and although he was not successful, as the application was genuinely mistakenly filed, I consider it just to suppress the parties’ details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4890563 — Boarding House

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4890563 — Boarding House

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions