What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5000074 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5000074?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5000074?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5000074?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11181015-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5000074 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5000074?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5000074?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5000074?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11181015-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

1785 State Highway 1, Marton, RD 1, Marton 4787 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5000074 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5000074. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
and reimbursement of the filing fee of	$27.00		and reimbursement of the filing fee of

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord is to pay $1,027.00 to the tenant immediately, being repayment of the bond of $1,000.00 and reimbursement of the filing fee of $27.00.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant’s application is for refund of the bond. See section 22B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord denies that there was a residential tenancy agreement between the parties. He claims that the agreement was a commercial lease for the grazing of the tenant’s horses and that the money paid to him by the tenant was for work that he was to complete to the property. Background
The parties agreed the following facts: a. The tenant was looking for a residential property for herself and her two children and grazing for her racehorses. She placed an advertisement on Facebook. b. On 22 May 2024 the landlord texted the tenant: “Hi just saw your add how many horses do you have I have house and land.” c. The parties met on the landlord’s farm and agreed that the landlord would convert a “shed” or “office” into a one-bedroom, self-contained dwelling for the tenant’s occupation and that the tenant would lease land for her horses. d. On 2 June 2024 the landlord texted the tenant to advise that “if your happy its all yours”. The tenant responded: “OK sweet when would suit for us to move”. e. By text on 16 June 2024 the landlord advised the tenant that the rent would be $450.00 or $500.00 if the landlord paid the power. The tenant responded “Sweet yes that sounds fine.” The landlord agreed by text to sign “accommodation thing for winz”. f. On 27 June 2024 the tenant paid the sum of $650.00 to the landlord’s nominated account narrated as Bond. g. The landlord acknowledged that a further $350.00 was paid by the tenant so that the total paid by the tenant to the landlord was $1,000.00. h. The tenant made text enquiries during June and July 2024 regarding progress and a date to move in. The landlord’s responses to the tenant were vague or evasive. i. On 22 July 2024 the tenant advised the landlord that she could not wait any longer and on 29 July 2024 she texted the landlord to advise that she did not trust the landlord and that she did not want to continue with their arrangement.
The landlord claimed: a. The agreement was to lease grazing land only and that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is excluded by section 5(1)(a) RTA as the arrangement was for a commercial lease of rural land and not for residential premises. b. The $1,000.00 paid by the tenant to the landlord was not a bond but payment for works which the landlord had agreed to carry out on the property for the tenant. c. He has spent $20,000.00 lining the property and preparing it for occupation. He believes he is entitled to compensation for the work done because the tenant backed out of their agreement.
The tenant claimed: a. The agreement was always for her to rent a house and grazing land, never just grazing land. She explained that she could not move out of her current accommodation unless there was a residential property for her to move into. This was why she kept texting the landlord trying to fix a secure move in date. b. She paid the $1,000.00 as a bond just as she would in any other residential tenancy. This was why she narrated her payment as ”bond”. c. As she never moved into the property, she is entitled to the refund of the bond in full and never agreed to forfeit these funds if she did not move in. Jurisdiction
Section 4 RTA provides that the RTA applies to all tenancies of residential premises unless specifically excluded. The onus is on the party contending that the tenancy in question is excluded to prove that the RTA does not apply. See section 10 RTA and Ziki Investments (Properties) Ltd v McDonald [2008] 3 NZLR 417 (HC). The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
In Adams v Massey University Palmerston North TT 43/94, 10 October 1994 Judge Toomey stated that, in order to give effect to the Act’s true intent and meaning, the courts (and the Tribunal) are required to interpret the exemptions in section 5 strictly and not liberally.
Commercial premises are defined in section 2(1) RTA simply as premises which are not residential. Residential premises are defined in the same section as “any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence”.
The landlord argued that the agreement between the parties was a lease for grazing. Yet he also accepted that he was to convert the “old shed” or “office” for residential purposes to be occupied by the tenant as a self-contained dwelling and that he spent a significant sum trying to convert the premises to a dwelling.
In Main v Main [2007] NZCA 306 Chisholm J determined: “For the purposes of this Act, where any premises that are subject to a legal or an equitable lease are used for both commercial and residential purposes, the premises shall be deemed to be residential premises unless it is proved that the premises were let principally for purposes other than residential purposes.”
In this case and on the evidence before the Tribunal, the landlord has not persuaded it on the balance of probabilities that the arrangement between the parties was exclusively commercial. There was clearly the intention of both parties that it would include residential premises.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the tenant’s claim for refund of the bond. Bond refund
The Tribunal does not accept that there is any evidence before the Tribunal to conclude that the $1,000.00 paid by the tenant to the landlord was for anything other than a bond for the residential tenancy.
The landlord did not point to any legal responsibility for the tenant to pay any amount towards the works he was carrying out, nor did he provide any other contemporaneous evidence such as texts or emails to support his contention. The landlord retains the benefit of all works carried out by him on the property.
The text correspondence, the bank narration and the reference to a WINZ accommodation form, all support the tenant’s claim that the money was paid as bond money in the usual way.
The tenant has applied for refund of her bond. Section 22B(2) RTA provides: “If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.”
The requirement for the landlord to file a counterclaim is mandatory. Therefore, because the landlord has not done so, the bond must be refunded in full to the tenant.
As the tenant has been wholly successful in her application, the Tribunal must order reimbursement of the filing fee. See section 102(4)(a) RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5000074. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
and reimbursement of the filing fee of	$27.00		and reimbursement of the filing fee of

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord is to pay $1,027.00 to the tenant immediately, being repayment of the bond of $1,000.00 and reimbursement of the filing fee of $27.00.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant’s application is for refund of the bond. See section 22B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord denies that there was a residential tenancy agreement between the parties. He claims that the agreement was a commercial lease for the grazing of the tenant’s horses and that the money paid to him by the tenant was for work that he was to complete to the property. Background
The parties agreed the following facts: a. The tenant was looking for a residential property for herself and her two children and grazing for her racehorses. She placed an advertisement on Facebook. b. On 22 May 2024 the landlord texted the tenant: “Hi just saw your add how many horses do you have I have house and land.” c. The parties met on the landlord’s farm and agreed that the landlord would convert a “shed” or “office” into a one-bedroom, self-contained dwelling for the tenant’s occupation and that the tenant would lease land for her horses. d. On 2 June 2024 the landlord texted the tenant to advise that “if your happy its all yours”. The tenant responded: “OK sweet when would suit for us to move”. e. By text on 16 June 2024 the landlord advised the tenant that the rent would be $450.00 or $500.00 if the landlord paid the power. The tenant responded “Sweet yes that sounds fine.” The landlord agreed by text to sign “accommodation thing for winz”. f. On 27 June 2024 the tenant paid the sum of $650.00 to the landlord’s nominated account narrated as Bond. g. The landlord acknowledged that a further $350.00 was paid by the tenant so that the total paid by the tenant to the landlord was $1,000.00. h. The tenant made text enquiries during June and July 2024 regarding progress and a date to move in. The landlord’s responses to the tenant were vague or evasive. i. On 22 July 2024 the tenant advised the landlord that she could not wait any longer and on 29 July 2024 she texted the landlord to advise that she did not trust the landlord and that she did not want to continue with their arrangement.
The landlord claimed: a. The agreement was to lease grazing land only and that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is excluded by section 5(1)(a) RTA as the arrangement was for a commercial lease of rural land and not for residential premises. b. The $1,000.00 paid by the tenant to the landlord was not a bond but payment for works which the landlord had agreed to carry out on the property for the tenant. c. He has spent $20,000.00 lining the property and preparing it for occupation. He believes he is entitled to compensation for the work done because the tenant backed out of their agreement.
The tenant claimed: a. The agreement was always for her to rent a house and grazing land, never just grazing land. She explained that she could not move out of her current accommodation unless there was a residential property for her to move into. This was why she kept texting the landlord trying to fix a secure move in date. b. She paid the $1,000.00 as a bond just as she would in any other residential tenancy. This was why she narrated her payment as ”bond”. c. As she never moved into the property, she is entitled to the refund of the bond in full and never agreed to forfeit these funds if she did not move in. Jurisdiction
Section 4 RTA provides that the RTA applies to all tenancies of residential premises unless specifically excluded. The onus is on the party contending that the tenancy in question is excluded to prove that the RTA does not apply. See section 10 RTA and Ziki Investments (Properties) Ltd v McDonald [2008] 3 NZLR 417 (HC). The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
In Adams v Massey University Palmerston North TT 43/94, 10 October 1994 Judge Toomey stated that, in order to give effect to the Act’s true intent and meaning, the courts (and the Tribunal) are required to interpret the exemptions in section 5 strictly and not liberally.
Commercial premises are defined in section 2(1) RTA simply as premises which are not residential. Residential premises are defined in the same section as “any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence”.
The landlord argued that the agreement between the parties was a lease for grazing. Yet he also accepted that he was to convert the “old shed” or “office” for residential purposes to be occupied by the tenant as a self-contained dwelling and that he spent a significant sum trying to convert the premises to a dwelling.
In Main v Main [2007] NZCA 306 Chisholm J determined: “For the purposes of this Act, where any premises that are subject to a legal or an equitable lease are used for both commercial and residential purposes, the premises shall be deemed to be residential premises unless it is proved that the premises were let principally for purposes other than residential purposes.”
In this case and on the evidence before the Tribunal, the landlord has not persuaded it on the balance of probabilities that the arrangement between the parties was exclusively commercial. There was clearly the intention of both parties that it would include residential premises.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the tenant’s claim for refund of the bond. Bond refund
The Tribunal does not accept that there is any evidence before the Tribunal to conclude that the $1,000.00 paid by the tenant to the landlord was for anything other than a bond for the residential tenancy.
The landlord did not point to any legal responsibility for the tenant to pay any amount towards the works he was carrying out, nor did he provide any other contemporaneous evidence such as texts or emails to support his contention. The landlord retains the benefit of all works carried out by him on the property.
The text correspondence, the bank narration and the reference to a WINZ accommodation form, all support the tenant’s claim that the money was paid as bond money in the usual way.
The tenant has applied for refund of her bond. Section 22B(2) RTA provides: “If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.”
The requirement for the landlord to file a counterclaim is mandatory. Therefore, because the landlord has not done so, the bond must be refunded in full to the tenant.
As the tenant has been wholly successful in her application, the Tribunal must order reimbursement of the filing fee. See section 102(4)(a) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5000074 — Tenancy dispute at 1785 State Highway 1, Marton, RD 1, Marton 4787

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5000074 — Tenancy dispute at 1785 State Highway 1, Marton, RD 1, Marton 4787

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