What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4946215 about?

The tribunal order states: Under section 78(1)(a) the Tribunal declares that the Residential Tenancies

How much money was awarded in case 4946215?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4946215?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4946215?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11036970-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4946215 about?

The tribunal order states: Under section 78(1)(a) the Tribunal declares that the Residential Tenancies

How much money was awarded in case 4946215?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4946215?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4946215?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11036970-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 814 Williams Street, Mahora, Hastings 4120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4946215 — Healthy homes

Order

Under section 78(1)(a) the Tribunal declares that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not apply to the licence to occupy dated 22 January 2024 between the parties concerning the premises at Unit/Flat 1, 814 Williams Street, Mahora, Hastings 4120 and therefore the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the applicant’s claims.
There is an order for suppression of the applicant’s name.

Reasons

Both parties attended the jurisdiction hearing which was conducted by phone on 26 September 2024.
The applicant seeks exemplary damages for non-compliance with provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 concerning the requirements of tenancy agreements, lodgement of bond, quiet enjoyment, Healthy Homes Standards and the landlord’s right of entry.
The respondent said that the agreement between the parties is not covered by the Act because it is an exception under section 5(1)(y)(i), which says that the Act does not apply where: the premises are used to provide emergency or transitional accommodation and the provision of the accommodation is funded wholly or partly by: emergency housing assistance paid to or for the credit of a person under the Special Needs Grants Programme; or any other payment made by a government department for the provision of emergency or transitional accommodation to people in need of housing.
The respondent says that they are contracted by the Department of Corrections to provide transitional housing to people on their release from prison. It is a 13- week programme aimed at reintegration and assisting them to find accommodation. In this instance they have helped the applicant with a series of such programmes. There is another application before the Tribunal in proceedings numbered 4946174.
In the other proceedings, 4946174, the respondent had been directed to file any further evidence to support their case by 4 October 2024. The applicant was given a further opportunity to reply.
The written agreement between the parties is termed “Licence to Occupy – Single.”
The landlord details are recorded as the Salvation Army – Supported Accommodation Reintegration Service, with the applicant being recorded as the client. The property details are 1/814 Williams St, Hastings. The rent per week is $220. The document further records that the license to occupy is for a fixed term of up to 13 weeks. It provides for termination on one week’s notice by the client.
The respondent has provided a letter dated 27 September 2024 from Rebecca Barson, Director Reintegration and Community Support at the Department of Corrections (Ara Poutama Aotearoa). It reads: Re: The Salvation Army Trust and Supported Accommodation Service The Salvation Army Trust has been worked with the Department of Corrections since 2006 to assist with the housing and reintegration of people leaving prison and back into the community. The Salvation Army Trust is currently contracted by the Department to provide Emergency or Transitional Housing. This reintegrative service aims to primarily support individuals to reconnect with the community. Included in this service is a wraparound support service, transitional accommodation, and assistance to sustain independent and long-term accommodation. Each client in the service pays a contribution towards their accommodation and have a ‘License to Occupy’ agreement with The Salvation Army Trust, who act as the tenant of each property. We trust this letter provides confirmation of the Department’s funding arrangements with The Salvation Army Trust for this service.
The respondent also provided a copy of brochure about the Salvation Army Trust’s Reintegration Services, which contained information consistent with the above.
The applicant said in response that the documents provided by the respondent fail to explicitly reference Williams Street; that there is no clear indication within the evidence that links this address to the tenancy or any agreement related to this matter.
Second, the applicant said that there was an absence of relevant contractual agreements. Without such documentation, the claim that these properties are part of the scheme remains unsupported.
The applicant concedes that an organisation as large as the Salvation Army may have received funding for housing in general, but his understanding is that Parliament intended the Act’s exemption to apply only when payments are specifically allocated for the particular residence in question. The exemption under Section 5(1)(y) is not meant to provide organisations with a blanket exemption from the Residential Tenancies Act. Since this property does not receive such specific funding, the exemption does not apply. Discussion
The respondent has provided evidence that the premises at Unit/Flat 1, 814 Williams Street, Mahora, Hastings are premises used to provide emergency or transitional accommodation and the provision of the accommodation is funded partly by a government department for that purpose as follows: a. At the hearing Mr Millar for the respondent said that the agreement in relation to Unit/Flat 1, 814 Williams Street, Mahora, Hastings was a licence to occupy as part of their 13-week programme. He said they are contracted by the Department of Corrections to run The Salvation Army Trust’s reintegration service. b. The Licence to Occupy Agreement for Unit/Flat 1, 814 Williams Street, Mahora, Hastings is headed with a Salvation Army letterhead which says “Reintegration Services”. It refers to a 13-week period. c. The Department of Corrections has confirmed in a signed letter that The Salvation Army Trust is currently contracted by the Department to provide Emergency or Transitional Housing. d. It would be unlikely that the Department of Corrections would have a contract for each address. The Salvation Army Trust receives funding to provide a service, which includes temporary accommodation. At the hearing the respondent said that The Salvation Army Trust does not own the premises: they rent and then issue the licenses to occupy. e. There is nothing in the parliamentary debates or the report of the Select Committee on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill 2020, which, when passed as legislation, introduced section 5(1)(y) to support the applicant’s view that Parliament intended the Act’s exemption to apply only when payments are specifically allocated for the particular residence in question.
The respondent does not need to provide a copy of the actual contract for services with the Department of Corrections. This may well be commercially sensitive but in any event, it is unlikely to advance matters.
In conclusion, I find that the agreement between the parties is excluded under section 5(1)(y) of the Act. The premises are used to provide transitional accommodation and it is partially funded by the Department of Corrections.
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.
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 and the application of the Act.

Order

Under section 78(1)(a) the Tribunal declares that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not apply to the licence to occupy dated 22 January 2024 between the parties concerning the premises at Unit/Flat 1, 814 Williams Street, Mahora, Hastings 4120 and therefore the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the applicant’s claims.
There is an order for suppression of the applicant’s name.

Reasons

Both parties attended the jurisdiction hearing which was conducted by phone on 26 September 2024.
The applicant seeks exemplary damages for non-compliance with provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 concerning the requirements of tenancy agreements, lodgement of bond, quiet enjoyment, Healthy Homes Standards and the landlord’s right of entry.
The respondent said that the agreement between the parties is not covered by the Act because it is an exception under section 5(1)(y)(i), which says that the Act does not apply where: the premises are used to provide emergency or transitional accommodation and the provision of the accommodation is funded wholly or partly by: emergency housing assistance paid to or for the credit of a person under the Special Needs Grants Programme; or any other payment made by a government department for the provision of emergency or transitional accommodation to people in need of housing.
The respondent says that they are contracted by the Department of Corrections to provide transitional housing to people on their release from prison. It is a 13- week programme aimed at reintegration and assisting them to find accommodation. In this instance they have helped the applicant with a series of such programmes. There is another application before the Tribunal in proceedings numbered 4946174.
In the other proceedings, 4946174, the respondent had been directed to file any further evidence to support their case by 4 October 2024. The applicant was given a further opportunity to reply.
The written agreement between the parties is termed “Licence to Occupy – Single.”
The landlord details are recorded as the Salvation Army – Supported Accommodation Reintegration Service, with the applicant being recorded as the client. The property details are 1/814 Williams St, Hastings. The rent per week is $220. The document further records that the license to occupy is for a fixed term of up to 13 weeks. It provides for termination on one week’s notice by the client.
The respondent has provided a letter dated 27 September 2024 from Rebecca Barson, Director Reintegration and Community Support at the Department of Corrections (Ara Poutama Aotearoa). It reads: Re: The Salvation Army Trust and Supported Accommodation Service The Salvation Army Trust has been worked with the Department of Corrections since 2006 to assist with the housing and reintegration of people leaving prison and back into the community. The Salvation Army Trust is currently contracted by the Department to provide Emergency or Transitional Housing. This reintegrative service aims to primarily support individuals to reconnect with the community. Included in this service is a wraparound support service, transitional accommodation, and assistance to sustain independent and long-term accommodation. Each client in the service pays a contribution towards their accommodation and have a ‘License to Occupy’ agreement with The Salvation Army Trust, who act as the tenant of each property. We trust this letter provides confirmation of the Department’s funding arrangements with The Salvation Army Trust for this service.
The respondent also provided a copy of brochure about the Salvation Army Trust’s Reintegration Services, which contained information consistent with the above.
The applicant said in response that the documents provided by the respondent fail to explicitly reference Williams Street; that there is no clear indication within the evidence that links this address to the tenancy or any agreement related to this matter.
Second, the applicant said that there was an absence of relevant contractual agreements. Without such documentation, the claim that these properties are part of the scheme remains unsupported.
The applicant concedes that an organisation as large as the Salvation Army may have received funding for housing in general, but his understanding is that Parliament intended the Act’s exemption to apply only when payments are specifically allocated for the particular residence in question. The exemption under Section 5(1)(y) is not meant to provide organisations with a blanket exemption from the Residential Tenancies Act. Since this property does not receive such specific funding, the exemption does not apply. Discussion
The respondent has provided evidence that the premises at Unit/Flat 1, 814 Williams Street, Mahora, Hastings are premises used to provide emergency or transitional accommodation and the provision of the accommodation is funded partly by a government department for that purpose as follows: a. At the hearing Mr Millar for the respondent said that the agreement in relation to Unit/Flat 1, 814 Williams Street, Mahora, Hastings was a licence to occupy as part of their 13-week programme. He said they are contracted by the Department of Corrections to run The Salvation Army Trust’s reintegration service. b. The Licence to Occupy Agreement for Unit/Flat 1, 814 Williams Street, Mahora, Hastings is headed with a Salvation Army letterhead which says “Reintegration Services”. It refers to a 13-week period. c. The Department of Corrections has confirmed in a signed letter that The Salvation Army Trust is currently contracted by the Department to provide Emergency or Transitional Housing. d. It would be unlikely that the Department of Corrections would have a contract for each address. The Salvation Army Trust receives funding to provide a service, which includes temporary accommodation. At the hearing the respondent said that The Salvation Army Trust does not own the premises: they rent and then issue the licenses to occupy. e. There is nothing in the parliamentary debates or the report of the Select Committee on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill 2020, which, when passed as legislation, introduced section 5(1)(y) to support the applicant’s view that Parliament intended the Act’s exemption to apply only when payments are specifically allocated for the particular residence in question.
The respondent does not need to provide a copy of the actual contract for services with the Department of Corrections. This may well be commercially sensitive but in any event, it is unlikely to advance matters.
In conclusion, I find that the agreement between the parties is excluded under section 5(1)(y) of the Act. The premises are used to provide transitional accommodation and it is partially funded by the Department of Corrections.
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.
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 and the application of the Act.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4946215 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 1, 814 Williams Street, Mahora, Hastings 4120

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4946215 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 1, 814 Williams Street, Mahora, Hastings 4120

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