What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4954134 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal suppresses the names and identifying details of both parties.

How much money was awarded in case 4954134?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4954134?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4954134?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10753030-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4954134 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal suppresses the names and identifying details of both parties.

How much money was awarded in case 4954134?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4954134?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4954134?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10753030-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4954134 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. The landlord did not attend.

The tenant has applied for a refund of his bond, compensation, and exemplary damages for alleged breaches by the landlord.

First, the Tribunal must consider whether it has jurisdiction to hear the application. Background

The tenancy started on 10 November 2023.

The tenant rented a room in the premises owned by the landlord and her husband. They live there; it is their principal place of residence.

There was one other tenant at the premises while this tenant resided there.

The parties fell out and the tenant vacated the tenancy.

The landlord refused to refund his bond, claiming costs for damage and a fee for the tenant leaving the tenancy early.

The tenant first applied to the Disputes Tribunal. His application was rejected because an order from this tribunal is required when there is a tenancy dispute. The Tenancy Tribunal has originating jurisdiction on all residential tenancy disputes. The law

Not all tenancies fall within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal. Some are excluded.

Section 5 RTA sets out what tenancies are excluded from the RTA. Section 5(1)(n) excluded a tenancy: 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 owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family:

These premises were not a boarding house. A boarding house is defined in section 66B RTA as residential premises containing 1 or more boarding rooms occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time.

Here, the premises were used during the tenancy principally as a place of residence by the owner of the premises, described as the landlord in the tenancy agreement.

The tenant confirmed today that the landlord was the owner of the premises and lived there with her husband. She rented only 2 rooms. There were only 2 tenants at any one time.

The relationship between the parties was either a flatmate or a boarder arrangement. It was not a landlord/tenant relationship that falls under the RTA.

What now?

The Disputes Tribunal may here this application because the tenancy is excluded under the RTA. Name suppression

I have suppressed the names of both parties as the application might now be heard in the Disputes Tribunal which does not publish the names of parties.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. The landlord did not attend.

The tenant has applied for a refund of his bond, compensation, and exemplary damages for alleged breaches by the landlord.

First, the Tribunal must consider whether it has jurisdiction to hear the application. Background

The tenancy started on 10 November 2023.

The tenant rented a room in the premises owned by the landlord and her husband. They live there; it is their principal place of residence.

There was one other tenant at the premises while this tenant resided there.

The parties fell out and the tenant vacated the tenancy.

The landlord refused to refund his bond, claiming costs for damage and a fee for the tenant leaving the tenancy early.

Not all tenancies fall within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal. Some are excluded.

Here, the premises were used during the tenancy principally as a place of residence by the owner of the premises, described as the landlord in the tenancy agreement.

The tenant confirmed today that the landlord was the owner of the premises and lived there with her husband. She rented only 2 rooms. There were only 2 tenants at any one time.

The relationship between the parties was either a flatmate or a boarder arrangement. It was not a landlord/tenant relationship that falls under the RTA.

What now?

The Disputes Tribunal may here this application because the tenancy is excluded under the RTA. Name suppression

I have suppressed the names of both parties as the application might now be heard in the Disputes Tribunal which does not publish the names of parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4954134 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4954134 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What now?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What now?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions