What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4970655 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 4970655?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4970655?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4970655?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10735722-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4970655 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 4970655?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4970655?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4970655?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10735722-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4970655 — Rent arrears

Order

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The transitional housing provider was represented by the regional lead tenancy manager and a property manager.
The occupant of a self contained one bedroom unit in a transitional housing complex was given a 48 hour notice to leave the unit. He had lived there with his partner for about three months. He does not agree the notice was fair. He filed the application with the tribunal because he wants the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) to apply. The RTA has different rules about notice and reasons for ending a tenancy. The questions I have to decide are: • Does the RTA apply? • Do the mistakes make the housing agreement of no effect?

Does the RTA apply?

There is a preliminary issue whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. 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 5(1)(y) states that the RTA does not apply where the occupancy is transitional housing, and the housing is paid for by a government department, such as MSD, and the provider is allowed to provide transitional housing.
The occupant signed a transitional housing agreement on 21 May 2024. The agreement he signed refers to the exclusion in the RTA. His rent was paid by MSD. I did not specifically ask the provider if they are allowed to provide transitional housing, but the manager’s evidence is that the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has checked and approved their housing agreement. It seems most likely to me this would only happen with approved providers of transitional housing.
The housing agreement specifically contracts back into the parts of the RTA, allowing a landlord to claim rent arrears and damage. Section 8 RTA allows this if the premises are used for residential purposes, and states that the parties can contract back into some or all of the provisions of the Act. The housing agreement does not contract back into the provisions that govern ending a tenancy. It seems most likely to me the decision to contract back into some provisions only was quite deliberate. It is not my job to decide if the transitional housing agreement is fair. It is my job to decide if the RTA applies to this housing arrangement.
The manager for the provider submitted that the housing was excluded from the RTA. 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 provider has the burden of proving the Act does not apply. The manager said: • Transitional housing is excluded by section 5(1)(y) RTA • They have their own rules under the Operational Guidelines for the Providers of Transitional Housing • HUD have approved their housing agreements • Contracting back into the RTA to allow claims for rent arrears and damage is new for them • Not contracting back into the provisions relating to termination was deliberate • The housing agreement was explained to the occupier before signing • The occupier signed a statement that he understood the housing could end on 48 hours notice if he breached any of the provisions of the housing agreement. It seems most likely to me the housing was covered by the Transitional Housing Agreement and not by the RTA.

Do the mistakes make the housing agreement of no effect?

The occupier also submitted that there were three significant mistakes in the housing agreement that mean it was of no effect. The first and second mistakes are that the agreement states it will commence on 21 May 2023 and run to 13 August 2023. The year should be 2024. The third mistake is that the address is wrongly described as “zzSmith” instead of Smith.
The occupier’s submission is that these mistakes make the agreement null and void. He said he lived in the house under a verbal tenancy agreement. He said the verbal tenancy agreement was subject to the rules in the RTA. His legal references included the law relating to contractual mistakes and the RTA. The provider said the mistakes were “typos” and did not affect the agreement.
I am not persuaded by the occupier’s submission. Section 24(1) of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 provides for the cancellation of a contract and compensation if there is a mistake, but the mistake must have resulted in a substantially unequal exchange or an obligation substantially disproportionate to the contract. I am not persuaded this was the case here. While the dates on the front page are wrong, the agreement was signed by both parties and dated 21 May 2024. The typo in the address made no difference to his accommodation. I find these were minor errors rather than substantial mistakes. Decision
For these reasons I find the RTA does not apply and I do not have jurisdiction to decide this application. Suppression
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. See section 95A RTA.
I have used my discretion and I allow suppression for both parties. While there is public interest in social housing, there have been no breaches under the RTA and publication of the names could be prejudicial.

Order

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The transitional housing provider was represented by the regional lead tenancy manager and a property manager.
The occupant of a self contained one bedroom unit in a transitional housing complex was given a 48 hour notice to leave the unit. He had lived there with his partner for about three months. He does not agree the notice was fair. He filed the application with the tribunal because he wants the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) to apply. The RTA has different rules about notice and reasons for ending a tenancy. The questions I have to decide are: • Does the RTA apply? • Do the mistakes make the housing agreement of no effect?

Does the RTA apply?

There is a preliminary issue whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. 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 5(1)(y) states that the RTA does not apply where the occupancy is transitional housing, and the housing is paid for by a government department, such as MSD, and the provider is allowed to provide transitional housing.
The occupant signed a transitional housing agreement on 21 May 2024. The agreement he signed refers to the exclusion in the RTA. His rent was paid by MSD. I did not specifically ask the provider if they are allowed to provide transitional housing, but the manager’s evidence is that the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has checked and approved their housing agreement. It seems most likely to me this would only happen with approved providers of transitional housing.
The housing agreement specifically contracts back into the parts of the RTA, allowing a landlord to claim rent arrears and damage. Section 8 RTA allows this if the premises are used for residential purposes, and states that the parties can contract back into some or all of the provisions of the Act. The housing agreement does not contract back into the provisions that govern ending a tenancy. It seems most likely to me the decision to contract back into some provisions only was quite deliberate. It is not my job to decide if the transitional housing agreement is fair. It is my job to decide if the RTA applies to this housing arrangement.
The manager for the provider submitted that the housing was excluded from the RTA. 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 provider has the burden of proving the Act does not apply. The manager said: • Transitional housing is excluded by section 5(1)(y) RTA • They have their own rules under the Operational Guidelines for the Providers of Transitional Housing • HUD have approved their housing agreements • Contracting back into the RTA to allow claims for rent arrears and damage is new for them • Not contracting back into the provisions relating to termination was deliberate • The housing agreement was explained to the occupier before signing • The occupier signed a statement that he understood the housing could end on 48 hours notice if he breached any of the provisions of the housing agreement. It seems most likely to me the housing was covered by the Transitional Housing Agreement and not by the RTA.

Do the mistakes make the housing agreement of no effect?

The occupier also submitted that there were three significant mistakes in the housing agreement that mean it was of no effect. The first and second mistakes are that the agreement states it will commence on 21 May 2023 and run to 13 August 2023. The year should be 2024. The third mistake is that the address is wrongly described as “zzSmith” instead of Smith.
The occupier’s submission is that these mistakes make the agreement null and void. He said he lived in the house under a verbal tenancy agreement. He said the verbal tenancy agreement was subject to the rules in the RTA. His legal references included the law relating to contractual mistakes and the RTA. The provider said the mistakes were “typos” and did not affect the agreement.
I am not persuaded by the occupier’s submission. Section 24(1) of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 provides for the cancellation of a contract and compensation if there is a mistake, but the mistake must have resulted in a substantially unequal exchange or an obligation substantially disproportionate to the contract. I am not persuaded this was the case here. While the dates on the front page are wrong, the agreement was signed by both parties and dated 21 May 2024. The typo in the address made no difference to his accommodation. I find these were minor errors rather than substantial mistakes. Decision
For these reasons I find the RTA does not apply and I do not have jurisdiction to decide this application. Suppression
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. See section 95A RTA.
I have used my discretion and I allow suppression for both parties. While there is public interest in social housing, there have been no breaches under the RTA and publication of the names could be prejudicial.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4970655 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4970655 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the RTA apply?

Do the mistakes make the housing agreement of no effect?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the RTA apply?

Do the mistakes make the housing agreement of no effect?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions