What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4946174 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the application.

How much money was awarded in case 4946174?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4946174?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4946174?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11022259-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4946174 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the application.

How much money was awarded in case 4946174?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4946174?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4946174?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11022259-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 4 Herekawe Drive, Spotswood, New Plymouth Tenancy Tribunal Case 4946174 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Millar represented The Salvation Army New Zealand Trust (the Trust).

The application was set down to decide whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction. This is because the housing was provided by the Trust subject to a three month licence to occupy agreement. The occupant was asked to leave and is concerned that his rights under the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) were breached. The Trust submitted that the accommodation was an excluded tenancy provided in association with the Department of Corrections. I adjourned to allow the Trust to provide written confirmation it was providing transitional housing to the occupant.

Section 77(1) 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 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Section 10 RTA provides that, where a party to proceedings contends that the Act does not apply, they must establish the facts supporting their contention. In other words, the Trust has the burden of proving the Act does not apply.

Section 5(1)(y) RTA provides the Act shall not apply: if the premises are used to provide emergency or transitional accommodation and— (i) the provision of the accommodation is funded wholly or partly by— (A) emergency housing assistance paid to or for the credit of a person under the Special Needs Grants Programme; or (B) any other payment made by a government department for the provision of emergency or transitional accommodation to people in need of housing; or (ii) the provider of the accommodation is a person, or class of person, prescribed by regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.

It was agreed evidence the accommodation provided was not emergency accommodation. Mr Millar’s submission is that the Trust provided transitional housing to the occupant pursuant to an arrangement through the Department of Corrections.

Subsequently, the Trust provided a letter from the Department of Corrections dated 27 September 2024. The Director Reintegration and Community Support Department of Corrections (Ara Poutama Aotearoa) confirmed that: “The Salvation Army Trust is currently contracted by the Department [of Corrections] to provide Emergency or Transitional Housing ... Each client in the service pays a contribution towards their accommodation and have a “Licence to Occupy” agreement with The Salvation Army Trust, who act as the tenant of each property. We trust this letter provides conformation of the Department’s funding arrangements with The Salvation Army Trust for this service.”

A copy of this letter was sent to the occupant, and he was given time to make submissions. There were no further submissions.

It seems most likely to me the tenancy premises were used to provide transitional accommodation and the provision of the accommodation was funded partly or wholly by a government department, namely the Department of Corrections. This means the accommodation was excluded from the Act by section 5(1)(y) RTA.

I find there is no jurisdiction to consider the application.

The tenant made an application for suppression. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. See section 95A RTA.

The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed. There is no public interest in his name because there has been no breach of the RTA. The landlord’s name is published because there is public interest in transitional housing.

Order

The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Millar represented The Salvation Army New Zealand Trust (the Trust).
The application was set down to decide whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction. This is because the housing was provided by the Trust subject to a three month licence to occupy agreement. The occupant was asked to leave and is concerned that his rights under the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) were breached. The Trust submitted that the accommodation was an excluded tenancy provided in association with the Department of Corrections. I adjourned to allow the Trust to provide written confirmation it was providing transitional housing to the occupant.
Section 77(1) 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 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Section 10 RTA provides that, where a party to proceedings contends that the Act does not apply, they must establish the facts supporting their contention. In other words, the Trust has the burden of proving the Act does not apply.
Section 5(1)(y) RTA provides the Act shall not apply: if the premises are used to provide emergency or transitional accommodation and— (i) the provision of the accommodation is funded wholly or partly by— (A) emergency housing assistance paid to or for the credit of a person under the Special Needs Grants Programme; or (B) any other payment made by a government department for the provision of emergency or transitional accommodation to people in need of housing; or (ii) the provider of the accommodation is a person, or class of person, prescribed by regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.
It was agreed evidence the accommodation provided was not emergency accommodation. Mr Millar’s submission is that the Trust provided transitional housing to the occupant pursuant to an arrangement through the Department of Corrections.
Subsequently, the Trust provided a letter from the Department of Corrections dated 27 September 2024. The Director Reintegration and Community Support Department of Corrections (Ara Poutama Aotearoa) confirmed that: “The Salvation Army Trust is currently contracted by the Department [of Corrections] to provide Emergency or Transitional Housing ... Each client in the service pays a contribution towards their accommodation and have a “Licence to Occupy” agreement with The Salvation Army Trust, who act as the tenant of each property. We trust this letter provides conformation of the Department’s funding arrangements with The Salvation Army Trust for this service.”
A copy of this letter was sent to the occupant, and he was given time to make submissions. There were no further submissions.
It seems most likely to me the tenancy premises were used to provide transitional accommodation and the provision of the accommodation was funded partly or wholly by a government department, namely the Department of Corrections. This means the accommodation was excluded from the Act by section 5(1)(y) RTA.
I find there is no jurisdiction to consider the application.
The tenant made an application for suppression. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. See section 95A RTA.
The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed. There is no public interest in his name because there has been no breach of the RTA. The landlord’s name is published because there is public interest in transitional housing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4946174 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1, 4 Herekawe Drive, Spotswood, New Plymouth

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4946174 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1, 4 Herekawe Drive, Spotswood, New Plymouth

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions