What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4907951 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s claim is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 4907951?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4907951?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4907951?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10586029-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4907951 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s claim is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 4907951?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4907951?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4907951?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10586029-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

16 Minto Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4907951 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenant’s claim is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing for herself.
Cindy Merz, the respondent’s director attended for the respondent.
The tenant claims the landlord has breached its obligations for increasing the rent and failed to notify a change of address.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear this claim?

The landlord queries whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) to hear the tenant’s claim.
The landlord own and operates a campground.
The tenant and her husband rent two plots of bare land with various services and facilities such as power, water, and access to other camping ground facilities. They have their own caravan on each plot.
Section 5(1)(t) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) says the Act is excluded where the premises comprise bare land (with or without facilities) on which the tenant has the right under the tenancy agreement to place or erect a mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter.
I note that s 5(1)(ta) of the RTA specifically deals with camping grounds whereas s 5(1)(t) does not. Section 5(1)(ta) provides: (ta) where the tenant occupies, under a tenancy agreement, a cabin, caravan, vehicle, tent, or other building or structure that— (i) is located in a camping-ground subject to regulations under the Health Act 1956; and (ii) is intended for human habitation for periods not exceeding 50 days in any continuous term of occupancy:
I had considered whether s 5(1)(ta) should take precedence over s 5(1)(t) in this case based on its wording being more specifically applicable to camping grounds: generalia specialibus non derogant. However, in a similar case to this one, His Honour Judge IDR Cameron, in the District Court case Britz v Novis [2021] NZDC 16975 explained that s 5(1)(ta) is only intended to apply where the landlord provides the caravan, not where it is the tenant’s own caravan: [10]I consider that s 5(1)(ta) is intended to apply where the cabin or other shelter is supplied by the owner/operator of the camp ground along with the bare land place it is on. That exemption expressly applies "where the tenant occupies, under a tenancy agreement, a cabin, caravan ... ". In the present case neither of the appellants occupy their accommodation under a tenancy agreement. Rather, they occupy bare land under a tenancy agreement with the right to erect a caravan or other means of shelter on that land. [11]As such, the exclusion under s 5(1)(t) applies, and accordingly the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not apply.
I am bound by His Honour’s findings. Therefore, I must dismiss the claim for want of jurisdiction. Non-publication
The tenant seeks an order for non-publication.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party to proceedings, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that the name or any identifying particulars of any party not be published under s 95A(4) of the RTA.
This decision is simply a finding that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction. The tenant’s application did not meaningfully proceed.
I have considered the interests of the parties and the public interest. The landlord does not oppose non-publication. Publication could adversely affect the tenant, her unwell husband, and their children should they seek “mainstream” rental accommodation. Clearly that is not in tenant’s interests, and there is no pressing public interest need for the tenant’s name to be known to the public at large or potential landlords. The decision can be published with redaction, so the substance of the decision is freely available to the public. Other
The tenant is at liberty to bring a case in the Disputes Tribunal.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing for herself.

Cindy Merz, the respondent’s director attended for the respondent.

The tenant claims the landlord has breached its obligations for increasing the rent and failed to notify a change of address.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear this claim?

The landlord queries whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) to hear the tenant’s claim.

The landlord own and operates a campground.

The tenant and her husband rent two plots of bare land with various services and facilities such as power, water, and access to other camping ground facilities. They have their own caravan on each plot.

Section 5(1)(t) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) says the Act is excluded where the premises comprise bare land (with or without facilities) on which the tenant has the right under the tenancy agreement to place or erect a mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter.

I note that s 5(1)(ta) of the RTA specifically deals with camping grounds whereas s 5(1)(t) does not. Section 5(1)(ta) provides: (ta) where the tenant occupies, under a tenancy agreement, a cabin, caravan, vehicle, tent, or other building or structure that— (i) is located in a camping-ground subject to regulations under the Health Act 1956; and (ii) is intended for human habitation for periods not exceeding 50 days in any continuous term of occupancy:

I had considered whether s 5(1)(ta) should take precedence over s 5(1)(t) in this case based on its wording being more specifically applicable to camping grounds: generalia specialibus non derogant. However, in a similar case to this one, His Honour Judge IDR Cameron, in the District Court case Britz v Novis [2021] NZDC 16975 explained that s 5(1)(ta) is only intended to apply where the landlord provides the caravan, not where it is the tenant’s own caravan: [10]I consider that s 5(1)(ta) is intended to apply where the cabin or other shelter is supplied by the owner/operator of the camp ground along with the bare land place it is on. That exemption expressly applies "where the tenant occupies, under a tenancy agreement, a cabin, caravan ... ". In the present case neither of the appellants occupy their accommodation under a tenancy agreement. Rather, they occupy bare land under a tenancy agreement with the right to erect a caravan or other means of shelter on that land. [11]As such, the exclusion under s 5(1)(t) applies, and accordingly the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not apply.

I am bound by His Honour’s findings. Therefore, I must dismiss the claim for want of jurisdiction. Non-publication

The tenant seeks an order for non-publication.

The Tribunal may on the application of any party to proceedings, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that the name or any identifying particulars of any party not be published under s 95A(4) of the RTA.

This decision is simply a finding that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction. The tenant’s application did not meaningfully proceed.

I have considered the interests of the parties and the public interest. The landlord does not oppose non-publication. Publication could adversely affect the tenant, her unwell husband, and their children should they seek “mainstream” rental accommodation. Clearly that is not in tenant’s interests, and there is no pressing public interest need for the tenant’s name to be known to the public at large or potential landlords. The decision can be published with redaction, so the substance of the decision is freely available to the public. Other

The tenant is at liberty to bring a case in the Disputes Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4907951 — Tenancy dispute at 16 Minto Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4907951 — Tenancy dispute at 16 Minto Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear this claim?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear this claim?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions