What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4903374 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal has jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 4903374?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4903374?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4903374?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10633244-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4903374 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal has jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 4903374?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4903374?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4903374?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10633244-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

9 Carlow Grove, Birchville, Upper Hutt 5018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4903374 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. I telephoned the tenant on the number she provided to the landlord by email the day before the hearing. The calls went to an answer message.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. There is a preliminary issue as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded. Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act.

Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides that the Act does not apply: 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

When determining whether the Act is excluded, the Tribunal considers the substance of the agreement between the parties rather than the labels they have applied.

The living situation here is that the landlord’s daughter still lives in the house. She occupies one of the bedrooms and that has an ensuite. The tenant rented one bedroom and had the sole use of the main bathroom. The rest of the house was shared equally between the two. Two other bedrooms are not used currently. The landlord said the living arrangement was intended to provide some company for his daughter, and to offset the costs of maintaining two houses. It seems most likely to me the arrangement is principally a business arrangement rather than a family taking in a boarder.

Section 8 RTA provides that, where the Act is excluded by sections 5 to 7, if the premises are used for residential purposes, the parties can contract back into some or all of the provisions of the Act.

In Featherston v Barfoot and Thompson Limited [2015] NZDC 12810, the parties to a sale and purchase agreement signed a standard form residential tenancy agreement which included a statement that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applied and that the bond would be lodged with the Bond Centre. Although the tenancy was theoretically covered by the exclusion in s 5(1)(o) RTA, the District Court concluded that the parties had contracted back into the Act. The Court rejected the argument that s 8 RTA required a provision written into the agreement specifically referring to the section.

The landlord wants the RTA to apply. He said he drafted a tenancy agreement to provide boundaries and protections for the living arrangement. It seems most likely to me the parties contracted back into the RTA, and I find I have jurisdiction to hear the claim. I

note the agreement drafted by the landlord has a number of unlawful clauses. My advice in the hearing was that he use the standard form tenancy agreement on the Tenancy Services website from now on.

How much is owed?

The landlord has claimed rent from 10 April to 30 May 2024. The landlord is required to prove this claim. The tenancy agreement signed by the parties does not have a start date on it. There is an email dated 11 April from the tenant saying the agreement had been signed, but tenancy agreements do not necessarily start when they are signed. I have not been provided with any other evidence confirming the start of the tenancy and I am not prepared to guess. This means the rent claim cannot be established, and it is dismissed.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return all keys and security devices. The landlord said the tenant did not return her key and the lock was rekeyed because of safety issues. While there was an obligation to return her key, the landlord has not provided me with any supporting evidence as to why there was a safety risk after the tenant moved out. The claim for rekeying the lock is dismissed. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA. Suppression

I have used my discretion to allow suppression for the tenant. This means her name will not be published. This is because the tenant is the most successful party. See section 95A RTA.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. I telephoned the tenant on the number she provided to the landlord by email the day before the hearing. The calls went to an answer message.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

When determining whether the Act is excluded, the Tribunal considers the substance of the agreement between the parties rather than the labels they have applied.

note the agreement drafted by the landlord has a number of unlawful clauses. My advice in the hearing was that he use the standard form tenancy agreement on the Tenancy Services website from now on.

How much is owed?

I have used my discretion to allow suppression for the tenant. This means her name will not be published. This is because the tenant is the most successful party. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4903374 — Rent arrears at 9 Carlow Grove, Birchville, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4903374 — Rent arrears at 9 Carlow Grove, Birchville, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

How much is owed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

How much is owed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions