What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4911044 about?

The published order could not be summarised from available data.

How much money was awarded in case 4911044?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4911044?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4911044?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11091176-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4911044 about?

The published order could not be summarised from available data.

How much money was awarded in case 4911044?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4911044?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4911044?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11091176-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4911044 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

The application was filed on 10 June 2024. On 10 July 2024, it was set down for a telephone hearing to determine jurisdiction. The applicant appeared. The respondent appeared represented by Mr Bluett. The matter was unsuitable for a telephone hearing and was adjourned for a face-to-face hearing. The Tribunal made evidence directions and confirmed the applicants desire to also be represented by a lawyer.
On 28 August 2024, the matter was scheduled for hearing on 23 October 2024. The applicant has appeared and advised that they do not wish to be represented. The respondent has appeared and again is represented by Mr Bluett. Both parties have brought with them evidence bundles which they have exchanged and provided to the Tribunal. Claims
The applicant claims that they have entered into a residential tenancy agreement with the respondent, and that the respondent has breached the terms of that agreement and the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with claims made by parties to a residential tenancy agreement. The respondent asserts that no such agreement was entered by the parties and that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the applicants claims.
The Tribunal has considered the evidence presented by both parties and their oral and written submissions on jurisdiction. Facts Applicant
The applicant states that in 2018, the respondent employed them, initially to undertake domestic duties, then as a dairy farm worker, then a farm manager. The applicant resided in a farm workers cottage provided for employees.
The applicant states that around August 2021, they ceased full time employment due to health issues. The applicant states that over this period they formed a close relationship with the respondent. The applicant states that after their employment ended, they continued to reside in the cottage and undertook some casual work for the respondent such as relief milking, helped with calving, and administrative work. As the applicant was in receipt of a benefit at the time, this employment was not under any formal contract.
The respondent employed another farm worker, and the applicant was no longer able to reside in the cottage. Around June 2022, the respondent purchased a four-berth self-contained caravan. The applicant states that the caravan was purchased and gifted to them by the respondent. The caravan was moved onto a part of the farm near unused stables.
The applicant states that there was an oral agreement allowing them to live in the caravan and use the land around the stables for horticultural purposes, in exchange for completing farm work to the value of $200.00 per week. The applicant states about three weeks after moving into the caravan they found it to be uninhabitable, and they began sleeping in the driest room of the stables. The applicant states the respondent was aware they were sleeping in the stables and provided assistance to make the stables habitable.
The applicant states that from around June 2022 to December 2023, they primarily resided in the stables, during which time their relationship with the respondent continued, and they continued to provide services in return for the right to occupy the stables. The applicant stated they invested time and effort making the stables habitable, believing that they would have a future beneficial interest in them. However, toward the end of 2023 the relationship deteriorated.
Around March 2024, the applicant, seeking to secure some return for their investment in the stables, proposed the parties enter into a long-term lease for the stables and surrounding land. The respondent rejected the proposal. On 08 July 2024, the respondent served a trespass notice on the applicant. Respondent
The respondent denies entering into a residential tenancy agreement. They acknowledged that the applicant initially provided domestic services before becoming involved in farm work, and that under an employment agreement had moved into a cottage on the farm. The respondent states that around August / September 2021, for health reasons, the tenant ceased formal employment. Because of the relationship that had grown between the parties, described by the respondent as mutually supportive, the applicant remained in the cottage and continued to help out on the farm. The applicant was in receipt of a benefit and received payment for any services rendered. The respondent states the right to continue to stay in the cottage was not contingent on the payment of rent either in money or in services rendered.
The respondent states that they employed another farm manager who required the cottage. Around June 2022 the respondent states they purchased a caravan for the applicant to reside in with her son. It was agreed that the caravan would be parked near unused stables where the tenant had created gardens. The respondent described the stables themselves as derelict with no services, fenced off, and used as a pig pen. The respondent did not view the stables as habitable. Although there are no photographs of the stables at the material time, there appears to be no dispute with the respondent’s general description.
The respondent accepts that the tenant had made improvements to the stables, which appear from the photographs produced by the applicant to have become a habitable space.
The respondent reiterated that, as with the cottage after the end of the formal employment, the right to stay in the caravan was not contingent on the payment of rent, either in money or in services rendered. The respondent states that due to their relationship they had allowed the applicant “to do what they wanted” with the stables. The respondent agreed that toward the end of 2023 their relationship with the applicant had deteriorated. On 08 July 2024, the respondent served a trespass notice on the applicant.
In summary, the applicant submits that the parties entered into an oral agreement whereby they could occupy the stables in return for services rendered, thus creating a tenancy agreement. The respondent submits the applicant resided in the caravan and stables under a mere licence and not a right of occupation in return for rent. Law
Residential premises are defined in the Act to mean 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.
Premises are defined in section 2(1) of the Act and include (a) any part of premises and, (b) any land and appurtenances, other than facilities, and (3) any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land.
Under section 5(1)(t) premises comprising 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, are excluded from the provisions of the Act, unless the parties have acknowledged the exclusion applying and have agreed under section 8 to contact back into, and be bound by the Act.
A tenancy is defined, in relation to any residential premises, the right to occupy the premises, (whether exclusively or not) 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.
A tenancy agreement is defined, in relation to any residential premises, as any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy and any variation of a tenancy agreement.
A legally binding tenancy agreement requires essential elements such as a clear offer, unequivocal acceptance of that offer, an intention to enter legal relations, certainty of essential terms, and the payment, in this case of rent or services.
Rent is defined and 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 applicant; but does not include any sum of money payable or paid by way of bond.
In the case of Melmerly Investments Ltd v McGarry CA141/01 , 6 November 2001 , the Court of Appeal confirmed at [21] that the Court is concerned only with the presence of consideration and did not make an assessment of the comparative value of the acts or promises of the parties , and that nominal consideration would be sufficient. Analysis
Under section 2(1) of the Act, both the caravan and the stables, whether or not they were intended for occupation, are defined as premises.
The issue in this case is whether the respondent granted the applicant a right to reside in the caravan, and use the stables as facilities, later allowing the applicant to reside in the stables in exchange for rent, or in this case, services.
If they were performed in exchange for the right to occupy the caravan or the stables, the services, namely the farm work undertaken by the applicant could be considered rent.
There is no written evidence of any agreement.
The applicant has given a questionnaire to family members and close friends, which included questions relevant to jurisdiction, such as “What was your understanding of the tenancy agreement between the landlord and the tenant?” and “Were you aware of any rent or other payments being made to the landlord?”
The questionnaires, which were completed for the Tribunal, are undated and unsigned.
Responses to the first question “What was your understanding of the tenancy agreement between the landlord and the tenant”, included statements that the applicant “worked for the respondent to live in the caravan”, “there was verbal agreement for the applicant to live in the stables and make improvements”, that the applicant “could live in the dirty old horse stables”, and “they thought the stables were [the applicants]”.
Responses to the second question “Were you aware of any rent or other payments being made to the landlord,” included statements, “Not money, just work,” “she paid with rent and labour,” and “No, I wasn’t.”
The respondent argues that these statements have little evidential value, claiming they are self-serving, the witnesses are either related or friends of the applicant, are unsigned, nor have they attended to give oral evidence. The respondent also suggests the witnesses had likely been counselled.
Under section 97 of the Act, subject to section 89 (which relates to statements made by parties in mediation), the Tribunal may receive in evidence any statement, document, information, or thing that in its opinion may assist it deal effectively with matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law. The Tribunal may therefore accept hearsay evidence, although it is for the Tribunal to determine the reliability and weight given to such evidence.
The most significant evidence in this matter is that of the applicant themselves. When the Tribunal asked the applicant if they ceased work on the farm would they have to leave the property, the applicant stated that they would not leave, as they considered themselves to be in a relationship with the respondent. Furthermore, they claimed that the improvements made to the stables had resulted in their gaining a beneficial interest in the property. However, the applicant considered that the respondent did not place any value on these improvements and would likely demolish the stables if they left.
As the hearing continued, the applicant then stated that the right to reside and develop the stables was a right expressly granted by the respondent on the condition that the applicant provided farm work valued at $200.00 per week, and that they would be expected to leave if they stopped working.
There are no records showing that work was completed to the stated value.
The respondent has consistently maintained that the applicant’s occupation of the caravan and stables was not contingent on paying rent or working on the farm.
Having had the benefit of hearing and observing both parties give evidence, I find the respondents account to be more consistent and therefore reliable.
I am not satisfied that the parties entered into a residential tenancy agreement. I am not satisfied that the applicant’s right to occupy the caravan or stables was contingent on them working on the farm. Name suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
Although the application of the facts to the law may be in the public interest, I do not consider that this interest necessarily extends to publishing the names of the parties. I therefore order the suppression of the names and any identifying details of the parties involved.

Reasons

The application was filed on 10 June 2024. On 10 July 2024, it was set down for a telephone hearing to determine jurisdiction. The applicant appeared. The respondent appeared represented by Mr Bluett. The matter was unsuitable for a telephone hearing and was adjourned for a face-to-face hearing. The Tribunal made evidence directions and confirmed the applicants desire to also be represented by a lawyer.

On 28 August 2024, the matter was scheduled for hearing on 23 October 2024. The applicant has appeared and advised that they do not wish to be represented. The respondent has appeared and again is represented by Mr Bluett. Both parties have brought with them evidence bundles which they have exchanged and provided to the Tribunal. Claims

The applicant claims that they have entered into a residential tenancy agreement with the respondent, and that the respondent has breached the terms of that agreement and the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with claims made by parties to a residential tenancy agreement. The respondent asserts that no such agreement was entered by the parties and that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the applicants claims.

The Tribunal has considered the evidence presented by both parties and their oral and written submissions on jurisdiction. Facts Applicant

The applicant states that in 2018, the respondent employed them, initially to undertake domestic duties, then as a dairy farm worker, then a farm manager. The applicant resided in a farm workers cottage provided for employees.

The applicant states that around August 2021, they ceased full time employment due to health issues. The applicant states that over this period they formed a close relationship with the respondent. The applicant states that after their employment ended, they continued to reside in the cottage and undertook some casual work for the respondent such as relief milking, helped with calving, and administrative work. As the applicant was in receipt of a benefit at the time, this employment was not under any formal contract.

The respondent employed another farm worker, and the applicant was no longer able to reside in the cottage. Around June 2022, the respondent purchased a four-berth self-contained caravan. The applicant states that the caravan was purchased and gifted to them by the respondent. The caravan was moved onto a part of the farm near unused stables.

The applicant states that there was an oral agreement allowing them to live in the caravan and use the land around the stables for horticultural purposes, in exchange for completing farm work to the value of $200.00 per week. The applicant states about three weeks after moving into the caravan they found it to be uninhabitable, and they began sleeping in the driest room of the stables. The applicant states the respondent was aware they were sleeping in the stables and provided assistance to make the stables habitable.

The applicant states that from around June 2022 to December 2023, they primarily resided in the stables, during which time their relationship with the respondent continued, and they continued to provide services in return for the right to occupy the stables. The applicant stated they invested time and effort making the stables habitable, believing that they would have a future beneficial interest in them. However, toward the end of 2023 the relationship deteriorated.

Around March 2024, the applicant, seeking to secure some return for their investment in the stables, proposed the parties enter into a long-term lease for the stables and surrounding land. The respondent rejected the proposal. On 08 July 2024, the respondent served a trespass notice on the applicant. Respondent

The respondent denies entering into a residential tenancy agreement. They acknowledged that the applicant initially provided domestic services before becoming involved in farm work, and that under an employment agreement had moved into a cottage on the farm. The respondent states that around August / September 2021, for health reasons, the tenant ceased formal employment. Because of the relationship that had grown between the parties, described by the respondent as mutually supportive, the applicant remained in the cottage and continued to help out on the farm. The applicant was in receipt of a benefit and received payment for any services rendered. The respondent states the right to continue to stay in the cottage was not contingent on the payment of rent either in money or in services rendered.

The respondent states that they employed another farm manager who required the cottage. Around June 2022 the respondent states they purchased a caravan for the applicant to reside in with her son. It was agreed that the caravan would be parked near unused stables where the tenant had created gardens. The respondent described the stables themselves as derelict with no services, fenced off, and used as a pig pen. The respondent did not view the stables as habitable. Although there are no photographs of the stables at the material time, there appears to be no dispute with the respondent’s general description.

The respondent accepts that the tenant had made improvements to the stables, which appear from the photographs produced by the applicant to have become a habitable space.

The respondent reiterated that, as with the cottage after the end of the formal employment, the right to stay in the caravan was not contingent on the payment of rent, either in money or in services rendered. The respondent states that due to their relationship they had allowed the applicant “to do what they wanted” with the stables. The respondent agreed that toward the end of 2023 their relationship with the applicant had deteriorated. On 08 July 2024, the respondent served a trespass notice on the applicant.

In summary, the applicant submits that the parties entered into an oral agreement whereby they could occupy the stables in return for services rendered, thus creating a tenancy agreement. The respondent submits the applicant resided in the caravan and stables under a mere licence and not a right of occupation in return for rent. Law

Residential premises are defined in the Act to mean 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.

Premises are defined in section 2(1) of the Act and include (a) any part of premises and, (b) any land and appurtenances, other than facilities, and (3) any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land.

Under section 5(1)(t) premises comprising 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, are excluded from the provisions of the Act, unless the parties have acknowledged the exclusion applying and have agreed under section 8 to contact back into, and be bound by the Act.

A tenancy is defined, in relation to any residential premises, the right to occupy the premises, (whether exclusively or not) 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.

A tenancy agreement is defined, in relation to any residential premises, as any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy and any variation of a tenancy agreement.

A legally binding tenancy agreement requires essential elements such as a clear offer, unequivocal acceptance of that offer, an intention to enter legal relations, certainty of essential terms, and the payment, in this case of rent or services.

Rent is defined and 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 applicant; but does not include any sum of money payable or paid by way of bond.

In the case of Melmerly Investments Ltd v McGarry CA141/01 , 6 November 2001 , the Court of Appeal confirmed at [21] that the Court is concerned only with the presence of consideration and did not make an assessment of the comparative value of the acts or promises of the parties , and that nominal consideration would be sufficient. Analysis

Under section 2(1) of the Act, both the caravan and the stables, whether or not they were intended for occupation, are defined as premises.

The issue in this case is whether the respondent granted the applicant a right to reside in the caravan, and use the stables as facilities, later allowing the applicant to reside in the stables in exchange for rent, or in this case, services.

If they were performed in exchange for the right to occupy the caravan or the stables, the services, namely the farm work undertaken by the applicant could be considered rent.

There is no written evidence of any agreement.

The applicant has given a questionnaire to family members and close friends, which included questions relevant to jurisdiction, such as “What was your understanding of the tenancy agreement between the landlord and the tenant?” and “Were you aware of any rent or other payments being made to the landlord?”

The questionnaires, which were completed for the Tribunal, are undated and unsigned.

Responses to the first question “What was your understanding of the tenancy agreement between the landlord and the tenant”, included statements that the applicant “worked for the respondent to live in the caravan”, “there was verbal agreement for the applicant to live in the stables and make improvements”, that the applicant “could live in the dirty old horse stables”, and “they thought the stables were [the applicants]”.

Responses to the second question “Were you aware of any rent or other payments being made to the landlord,” included statements, “Not money, just work,” “she paid with rent and labour,” and “No, I wasn’t.”

The respondent argues that these statements have little evidential value, claiming they are self-serving, the witnesses are either related or friends of the applicant, are unsigned, nor have they attended to give oral evidence. The respondent also suggests the witnesses had likely been counselled.

Under section 97 of the Act, subject to section 89 (which relates to statements made by parties in mediation), the Tribunal may receive in evidence any statement, document, information, or thing that in its opinion may assist it deal effectively with matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law. The Tribunal may therefore accept hearsay evidence, although it is for the Tribunal to determine the reliability and weight given to such evidence.

The most significant evidence in this matter is that of the applicant themselves. When the Tribunal asked the applicant if they ceased work on the farm would they have to leave the property, the applicant stated that they would not leave, as they considered themselves to be in a relationship with the respondent. Furthermore, they claimed that the improvements made to the stables had resulted in their gaining a beneficial interest in the property. However, the applicant considered that the respondent did not place any value on these improvements and would likely demolish the stables if they left.

As the hearing continued, the applicant then stated that the right to reside and develop the stables was a right expressly granted by the respondent on the condition that the applicant provided farm work valued at $200.00 per week, and that they would be expected to leave if they stopped working.

There are no records showing that work was completed to the stated value.

The respondent has consistently maintained that the applicant’s occupation of the caravan and stables was not contingent on paying rent or working on the farm.

Having had the benefit of hearing and observing both parties give evidence, I find the respondents account to be more consistent and therefore reliable.

I am not satisfied that the parties entered into a residential tenancy agreement. I am not satisfied that the applicant’s right to occupy the caravan or stables was contingent on them working on the farm. Name suppression.

Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.

Although the application of the facts to the law may be in the public interest, I do not consider that this interest necessarily extends to publishing the names of the parties. I therefore order the suppression of the names and any identifying details of the parties involved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4911044 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4911044 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions