What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4975183 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4975183?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4975183?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4975183?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10969251-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4975183 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4975183?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4975183?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4975183?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10969251-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4975183 — Boarding House

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the applicant’s and respondent’s name and identifying details.
Jurisdiction is declined and accordingly, the application is dismissed.

Reasons

This hearing was conducted by telephone, with both parties attending.
[The applicant/s], signed an agreement, described as a Boarding Agreement, on 7 June 2024. The other named party, [The owner], the respondent in these proceedings, is the owner of the premises. The “Board Provider” was identified as [The board provider].”
[The applicant/s] has applied to the Tribunal seeking refund of the bond and compensation of $900.00 for overpaid rent.
The question of jurisdiction arises, since the Tribunal can only deal with disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises. Legal principles
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) applies to every tenancy for residential purposes. There are some exclusions, listed in Section 5 of the Act.
A tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent...
A landlord, in relation to residential premises subject to a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement. 1
A tenant, in relation to residential premises subject to a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement. 2
Section 77 of the RTA provides that the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine (in accordance with the RTA) any dispute that: (a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time. .
The legislation is clear that the Tenancy Tribunal only has jurisdiction to determine disputes between a landlord and tenant. There is no jurisdiction to consider disputes between tenants or flatmates.
In the decision of Watson v Watson & Roo 3 the Court observed that when determining disputes as to the nature of the arrangement between the parties, it is important to focus on the substance of this arrangement, not the labels used: ...However the labels that the parties give to the arrangement will not and cannot be determinative. It will always be necessary to examine the full facts of the situation and determine what the substance of the arrangement was. Requirements for boarding house tenancies
A boarding house tenancy is a separate category of tenancy as defined in the

RTA

4 . A boarding house means: a. residential premises with one or more boarding rooms b. facilities for communal use by tenants 1 s.2 RTA definition of “landlord”. 2 s.2 RTA definition of “tenant”. 3 DC Christchurch CIV-2010-009-002030, 14 September 2010. 4 s.66B RTA.

c. occupied or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time.

A boarding house tenancy means a residential tenancy in a boarding house: a. That is intended to, or does in fact last, for 28 days or more. b. Under which a tenant is granted exclusive rights to occupy particular sleeping quarters in the boarding house, and has the right to the shared use of the facilities of the boarding house.
In the High Court decision of Karmarkar v Pandem 5 Bohemen J set out the relevant questions when deciding whether the tenancy is a boarding house tenancy: [34] In my view, it is possible to make sense of the definitions by asking the following questions: (a) Does the house contain one or more bedrooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants? (b) Is the house occupied or intended to be occupied by 6 or more tenants? (c) Is the tenancy intended to, or does in fact, last for 28 days or more? (d) Are tenants granted exclusive rights to occupy particular bedrooms, whether that occupancy is for single or shared use? (e) Does the right to occupy a particular bedroom derive from the tenancy agreement between the individual tenant and the landlord rather than from a collective decision of the tenants?
The Court stated that if the answer to all of the questions was “yes” then the tenancy was a boarding house tenancy and the rest of the provisions of Part 2A of the RTA would apply. Analysis
Taking into account the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find there is no jurisdiction for the Tribunal to determine this dispute, for the following reasons.
First, the agreement is between [The applicant/s] and [The board provider], rather than the named respondent, [The owner]. So, while [The owner] may be the owner of the property, in terms of this agreement, it is [The board provider] who is the other party.
Secondly, this is not an agreement between a landlord and tenant. The agreement itself is called a boarding agreement, with the parties being identified 5 [2018] NZHC 639. as the board provider and boarder. While the labels used by the parties will not always be determinative, this is a relevant factor to be taken into account.
Thirdly, the tenancy agreement for the premises records that [The owner’s agent] is the landlord, “as agent for [The owner].” The tenant is noted as [The board provider]. [The applicant/s] is not a named tenant in this agreement.
Fourthly, the requirements for a boarding house tenancy are not met, since the house was not occupied, or intended to be occupied, by 6 or more tenants. The tenancy agreement records that the maximum number of occupants is 4 people. [The applicant/s]’ evidence is that there were 4 people living in the premises at the time. Therefore, the boarding house provisions under the RTA will not apply to this agreement.
Accordingly, having found that this agreement is not a residential tenancy agreement under the RTA, jurisdiction to determine this application is declined. Consequently, I dismiss the application.
Should he still wish to pursue his claim, [The applicant/s] has the option of filing an application with the Disputes Tribunal. Filing fee
As the applicant has been unsuccessful, the filing fee is not reimbursed.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the applicant’s and respondent’s name and identifying details.
Jurisdiction is declined and accordingly, the application is dismissed.

Reasons

This hearing was conducted by telephone, with both parties attending.
[The applicant/s], signed an agreement, described as a Boarding Agreement, on 7 June 2024. The other named party, [The owner], the respondent in these proceedings, is the owner of the premises. The “Board Provider” was identified as [The board provider].”
[The applicant/s] has applied to the Tribunal seeking refund of the bond and compensation of $900.00 for overpaid rent.
The question of jurisdiction arises, since the Tribunal can only deal with disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises. Legal principles
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) applies to every tenancy for residential purposes. There are some exclusions, listed in Section 5 of the Act.
A tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent...
A landlord, in relation to residential premises subject to a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement. 1
A tenant, in relation to residential premises subject to a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement. 2
Section 77 of the RTA provides that the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine (in accordance with the RTA) any dispute that: (a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time. .
The legislation is clear that the Tenancy Tribunal only has jurisdiction to determine disputes between a landlord and tenant. There is no jurisdiction to consider disputes between tenants or flatmates.
In the decision of Watson v Watson & Roo 3 the Court observed that when determining disputes as to the nature of the arrangement between the parties, it is important to focus on the substance of this arrangement, not the labels used: ...However the labels that the parties give to the arrangement will not and cannot be determinative. It will always be necessary to examine the full facts of the situation and determine what the substance of the arrangement was. Requirements for boarding house tenancies
A boarding house tenancy is a separate category of tenancy as defined in the

RTA

c. occupied or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time.

A boarding house tenancy means a residential tenancy in a boarding house: a. That is intended to, or does in fact last, for 28 days or more. b. Under which a tenant is granted exclusive rights to occupy particular sleeping quarters in the boarding house, and has the right to the shared use of the facilities of the boarding house.
In the High Court decision of Karmarkar v Pandem 5 Bohemen J set out the relevant questions when deciding whether the tenancy is a boarding house tenancy: [34] In my view, it is possible to make sense of the definitions by asking the following questions: (a) Does the house contain one or more bedrooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants? (b) Is the house occupied or intended to be occupied by 6 or more tenants? (c) Is the tenancy intended to, or does in fact, last for 28 days or more? (d) Are tenants granted exclusive rights to occupy particular bedrooms, whether that occupancy is for single or shared use? (e) Does the right to occupy a particular bedroom derive from the tenancy agreement between the individual tenant and the landlord rather than from a collective decision of the tenants?
The Court stated that if the answer to all of the questions was “yes” then the tenancy was a boarding house tenancy and the rest of the provisions of Part 2A of the RTA would apply. Analysis
Taking into account the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find there is no jurisdiction for the Tribunal to determine this dispute, for the following reasons.
First, the agreement is between [The applicant/s] and [The board provider], rather than the named respondent, [The owner]. So, while [The owner] may be the owner of the property, in terms of this agreement, it is [The board provider] who is the other party.
Secondly, this is not an agreement between a landlord and tenant. The agreement itself is called a boarding agreement, with the parties being identified 5 [2018] NZHC 639. as the board provider and boarder. While the labels used by the parties will not always be determinative, this is a relevant factor to be taken into account.
Thirdly, the tenancy agreement for the premises records that [The owner’s agent] is the landlord, “as agent for [The owner].” The tenant is noted as [The board provider]. [The applicant/s] is not a named tenant in this agreement.
Fourthly, the requirements for a boarding house tenancy are not met, since the house was not occupied, or intended to be occupied, by 6 or more tenants. The tenancy agreement records that the maximum number of occupants is 4 people. [The applicant/s]’ evidence is that there were 4 people living in the premises at the time. Therefore, the boarding house provisions under the RTA will not apply to this agreement.
Accordingly, having found that this agreement is not a residential tenancy agreement under the RTA, jurisdiction to determine this application is declined. Consequently, I dismiss the application.
Should he still wish to pursue his claim, [The applicant/s] has the option of filing an application with the Disputes Tribunal. Filing fee
As the applicant has been unsuccessful, the filing fee is not reimbursed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4975183 — Boarding House

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4975183 — Boarding House

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RTA

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RTA

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions