What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4926914 about?

The tribunal order states: By declaration, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction under the Residential

How much money was awarded in case 4926914?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4926914?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4926914?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10872658-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4926914 about?

The tribunal order states: By declaration, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction under the Residential

How much money was awarded in case 4926914?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4926914?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4926914?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10872658-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

7C Veronica Street, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4926914 — Unit Titles

Reasons

The landlord was represented at the hearing by [The landlord’s representative]. The applicants were represented by [Applicant 1]. Application

The applicants seek compensation from the landlord as reimbursement for money paid by the applicants after their father’s death. The amount of $18,348.48 was paid on 17 May 2024. The applicants say that this money was for a year of rates and Body Corporate fees. Background

The applicants are some of the children of [The occupant] who sadly passed away on 11 May 2024.

A commercial lease commenced on 1 September 2017 between the landlord and [The tenant company]. The owner of that company was [The occupant’s son], one of the children of [The occupant]. The lease states that [The occupant] was a guarantor.

The lease states that the business use was [redacted].

Apparently [The tenant company] ceased trading and as [The occupant] was the guarantor, he took over payments for the lease. He constructed a mezzanine floor which contained a one-bedroom self-contained facility which he lived in.

The commercial lease expired on 1 September 2023, but [The occupant] remained living at the premises until his death. Jurisdiction

As it appears on the face of it that the premises are commercial it is necessary to consider whether this application comes within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.

Section 4 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that this Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.

Section 5(1) RTA states that this Act shall not apply in the following cases: (a) Where the premises are commercial premises.

The applicant says that her father was a tenant and that the commercial lease ended on 1 September 2023. As he was a tenant the applicant considers that it is the Tenancy Tribunal that should deal with this claim.

After hearing from the parties, I have reached the view that section 5(1)(a) applies, and this is not a residential tenancy that comes within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. I consider the following factors to be relevant: (a) The relationship between the landlord and [The tenant company] as tenant and [The occupant] as guarantor commenced in 2017 due to a commercial lease; (b) The commercial lease was for commercial premises with the business use of [redacted]; (c) While the commercial lease expired on 1 September 2023 [The occupant] remained living there until his death due to the commercial lease; (d) The premises did not become residential merely because [The occupant] began living there.

As I have reached the view that section 5(1)(a) RTA applies the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with this application and therefore it is dismissed. Suppression

The applicants sought suppression of their names from this order. While the applicants have not been successful with their application, I have exercised my discretion under section 95A(4) to suppress their names, together with the landlord name, after considering the public interest and the interests of the parties.

Order

By declaration, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 in relation to the premises formerly occupied by [The occupant] or [The tenant company] at 7C Veronica Street, New Lynn, Auckland.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord was represented at the hearing by [The landlord’s representative]. The applicants were represented by [Applicant 1]. Application
The applicants seek compensation from the landlord as reimbursement for money paid by the applicants after their father’s death. The amount of $18,348.48 was paid on 17 May 2024. The applicants say that this money was for a year of rates and Body Corporate fees. Background
The applicants are some of the children of [The occupant] who sadly passed away on 11 May 2024.
A commercial lease commenced on 1 September 2017 between the landlord and [The tenant company]. The owner of that company was [The occupant’s son], one of the children of [The occupant]. The lease states that [The occupant] was a guarantor.
The lease states that the business use was [redacted].
Apparently [The tenant company] ceased trading and as [The occupant] was the guarantor, he took over payments for the lease. He constructed a mezzanine floor which contained a one-bedroom self-contained facility which he lived in.
The commercial lease expired on 1 September 2023, but [The occupant] remained living at the premises until his death. Jurisdiction
As it appears on the face of it that the premises are commercial it is necessary to consider whether this application comes within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
Section 4 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that this Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.
Section 5(1) RTA states that this Act shall not apply in the following cases: (a) Where the premises are commercial premises.
The applicant says that her father was a tenant and that the commercial lease ended on 1 September 2023. As he was a tenant the applicant considers that it is the Tenancy Tribunal that should deal with this claim.
After hearing from the parties, I have reached the view that section 5(1)(a) applies, and this is not a residential tenancy that comes within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. I consider the following factors to be relevant: (a) The relationship between the landlord and [The tenant company] as tenant and [The occupant] as guarantor commenced in 2017 due to a commercial lease; (b) The commercial lease was for commercial premises with the business use of [redacted]; (c) While the commercial lease expired on 1 September 2023 [The occupant] remained living there until his death due to the commercial lease; (d) The premises did not become residential merely because [The occupant] began living there.
As I have reached the view that section 5(1)(a) RTA applies the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with this application and therefore it is dismissed. Suppression
The applicants sought suppression of their names from this order. While the applicants have not been successful with their application, I have exercised my discretion under section 95A(4) to suppress their names, together with the landlord name, after considering the public interest and the interests of the parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4926914 — Unit Titles at 7C Veronica Street, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4926914 — Unit Titles at 7C Veronica Street, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

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