What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4927456 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4927456?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4927456?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4927456?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10647101-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4927456 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4927456?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4927456?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4927456?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10647101-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4927456 — Exemplary damages

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
By way of declaration, it is noted that the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the relationship or agreement between the parties.
The application is struck out.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted via teleconference.
This was a jurisdiction hearing to determine whether [The applicant/s] application falls within the jurisdiction of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (”RTA”).
[The applicant/s] believes he was a tenant and rented a fully furnished room at [The tenancy address], from the landlord, [The respondent/s]. He paid rent of $250.00 per week and a bond of $500.00. He says the landlord resided at the property and there were other tenants (a couple) who rented a separate room. He has brought a claim to the Tribunal for refund of his bond, exemplary damages for non-lodgement of the bond and compensation of $909.99 for permanent damage caused to his mattress which he alleges was thrown out by the landlord without notice.
[The respondent/s] disputes the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. She says she is the tenant of the premises situated at [The tenancy address]. She has her own tenancy agreement with her landlord. For health reasons she decided to get flatmates. She advertised a fully furnished room for rent on Facebook Market which [The applicant/s] rented. She said [The applicant/s] was a flatmate, not a tenant on her tenancy agreement. She had other flatmates (a couple) who rented one of the other rooms. Both flatmates shared a bathroom. They all shared the other facilities, including the kitchen, lounge and laundry. There was no written agreement.
Section 2 RTA defines a landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, as the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement. A tenant is the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement.
A tenant is someone who rents a property directly from a landlord and who usually has a written tenancy agreement which records that they are the tenant. A flatmate is someone who lives with a tenant, but their name does not appear on the tenancy agreement. Flatmates are not responsible to the landlord for rent and the state of the property. Instead, they are responsible to the tenant for their share of the rent and other outgoings.
Here, [The respondent/s] is the grantee or tenant of the tenancy under the tenancy agreement. She is not the grantor or landlord of the tenancy. The evidence establishes that [The respondent/s] always intended that [The applicant/s] was a flatmate. For [The applicant/s] to be a tenant the landlord would have had to agree to that change to the tenancy agreement. There is no evidence that this is the case.
I am satisfied that the arrangement between the parties is not a tenancy agreement but a flatting arrangement. Therefore, the Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to determine [The applicant/s] claim.
The application is struck out.
I note that [The respondent/s] also has a counter claim she would like to progress. Therefore, if either party wish to progress their claims, it is open to them to file an application in the Disputes Tribunal. Suppression
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to suppress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion if in the public interest to do so. The applicant sought suppression and although he was not successful in his application, as he has not understood the relationship of landlord and tenant in bringing the claim to the Tenancy Tribunal, I consider it reasonable to suppress the parties’ details.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
By way of declaration, it is noted that the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the relationship or agreement between the parties.
The application is struck out.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted via teleconference.
This was a jurisdiction hearing to determine whether [The applicant/s] application falls within the jurisdiction of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (”RTA”).
[The applicant/s] believes he was a tenant and rented a fully furnished room at [The tenancy address], from the landlord, [The respondent/s]. He paid rent of $250.00 per week and a bond of $500.00. He says the landlord resided at the property and there were other tenants (a couple) who rented a separate room. He has brought a claim to the Tribunal for refund of his bond, exemplary damages for non-lodgement of the bond and compensation of $909.99 for permanent damage caused to his mattress which he alleges was thrown out by the landlord without notice.
[The respondent/s] disputes the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. She says she is the tenant of the premises situated at [The tenancy address]. She has her own tenancy agreement with her landlord. For health reasons she decided to get flatmates. She advertised a fully furnished room for rent on Facebook Market which [The applicant/s] rented. She said [The applicant/s] was a flatmate, not a tenant on her tenancy agreement. She had other flatmates (a couple) who rented one of the other rooms. Both flatmates shared a bathroom. They all shared the other facilities, including the kitchen, lounge and laundry. There was no written agreement.
Section 2 RTA defines a landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, as the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement. A tenant is the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement.
A tenant is someone who rents a property directly from a landlord and who usually has a written tenancy agreement which records that they are the tenant. A flatmate is someone who lives with a tenant, but their name does not appear on the tenancy agreement. Flatmates are not responsible to the landlord for rent and the state of the property. Instead, they are responsible to the tenant for their share of the rent and other outgoings.
Here, [The respondent/s] is the grantee or tenant of the tenancy under the tenancy agreement. She is not the grantor or landlord of the tenancy. The evidence establishes that [The respondent/s] always intended that [The applicant/s] was a flatmate. For [The applicant/s] to be a tenant the landlord would have had to agree to that change to the tenancy agreement. There is no evidence that this is the case.
I am satisfied that the arrangement between the parties is not a tenancy agreement but a flatting arrangement. Therefore, the Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to determine [The applicant/s] claim.
The application is struck out.
I note that [The respondent/s] also has a counter claim she would like to progress. Therefore, if either party wish to progress their claims, it is open to them to file an application in the Disputes Tribunal. Suppression
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to suppress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion if in the public interest to do so. The applicant sought suppression and although he was not successful in his application, as he has not understood the relationship of landlord and tenant in bringing the claim to the Tenancy Tribunal, I consider it reasonable to suppress the parties’ details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4927456 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4927456 — Exemplary damages

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