What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4916753 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 4916753?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4916753?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4916753?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10728000-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4916753 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 4916753?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4916753?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4916753?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10728000-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4916753 — Boarding House

Order

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction.

Reasons

The owner of the house attended the hearing. We were not able to contact the owner’s parents because they did not answer the calls made to their phones.
An application has been made by the owner of the house for possession, so the house can be sold. I have not been provided with any proof that he owns the house, but I have accepted his verbal evidence for the purposes of making a decision about jurisdiction. The first issue I must decide is whether the Tribunal can hear the application.
The owner said he has not lived in the house since 2021. At that time he made an agreement with his parents that they would live in the house and pay the mortgage, rates and insurance. Nothing was recorded in writing. This arrangement continued until half way through 2023, when there was a family disagreement. The parents stopped paying the outgoings but continue to live in the house. The owner said this has put him in financial difficulty and he needs to sell the house so he can provide for his own family.
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 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. The terms ’residential premises’, ‘tenancy’, and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined as: residential premises means 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 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 tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means 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 agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement.
It seems most likely to me there has been no payment of rent during this living arrangement. The parents have paid some of the outgoings, but this is different from rent. There is no tenancy agreement.
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.
It seems most likely to me this house is being used principally as a residence by the owner’s family. This means the living arrangement is excluded from the RTA.
Section 8 RTA provides that, where the Act is excluded by section 5, if the premises are used for residential purposes, the parties can contract back into some or all of the provisions of the Act. The parties have not contracted back into the RTA because there is no tenancy agreement. In fact, there is no written record of the arrangement at all. It seems most likely to me nothing was recorded in writing because this was intended to be a family arrangement rather than a residential tenancy.
For these reasons I find I have no jurisdiction to hear the application for possession.
I note the owner’s application was not made using section 65 RTA. Section 65 is a stand alone provision which allows parties to apply to the Tenancy Tribunal for possession in certain circumstances, even where there is no jurisdiction.
I am using my discretion to supress the names of both parties to this application. This is because it is a family matter and the only public interest is in the law, and not the names. See section 95A RTA.

Order

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction.

Reasons

The owner of the house attended the hearing. We were not able to contact the owner’s parents because they did not answer the calls made to their phones.
An application has been made by the owner of the house for possession, so the house can be sold. I have not been provided with any proof that he owns the house, but I have accepted his verbal evidence for the purposes of making a decision about jurisdiction. The first issue I must decide is whether the Tribunal can hear the application.
The owner said he has not lived in the house since 2021. At that time he made an agreement with his parents that they would live in the house and pay the mortgage, rates and insurance. Nothing was recorded in writing. This arrangement continued until half way through 2023, when there was a family disagreement. The parents stopped paying the outgoings but continue to live in the house. The owner said this has put him in financial difficulty and he needs to sell the house so he can provide for his own family.
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 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. The terms ’residential premises’, ‘tenancy’, and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined as: residential premises means 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 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 tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means 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 agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement.
It seems most likely to me there has been no payment of rent during this living arrangement. The parents have paid some of the outgoings, but this is different from rent. There is no tenancy agreement.
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.
It seems most likely to me this house is being used principally as a residence by the owner’s family. This means the living arrangement is excluded from the RTA.
Section 8 RTA provides that, where the Act is excluded by section 5, if the premises are used for residential purposes, the parties can contract back into some or all of the provisions of the Act. The parties have not contracted back into the RTA because there is no tenancy agreement. In fact, there is no written record of the arrangement at all. It seems most likely to me nothing was recorded in writing because this was intended to be a family arrangement rather than a residential tenancy.
For these reasons I find I have no jurisdiction to hear the application for possession.
I note the owner’s application was not made using section 65 RTA. Section 65 is a stand alone provision which allows parties to apply to the Tenancy Tribunal for possession in certain circumstances, even where there is no jurisdiction.
I am using my discretion to supress the names of both parties to this application. This is because it is a family matter and the only public interest is in the law, and not the names. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4916753 — Boarding House

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4916753 — Boarding House

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions