What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5034569 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 5034569?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5034569?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5034569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11163293-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5034569 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 5034569?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5034569?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5034569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11163293-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5034569 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by teleconference.
The applicant has applied for bond refund.
The application was set down today to consider whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with this claim.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The respondent claimed that he is the owner of the premises and the applicant is in a flatmate arrangement.
The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute that exists between a landlord and a tenant and relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies. See section 77(1) (a) and (b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
There are some exclusions to the Act which include that the Act is excluded where the premises continue to be used during the tenancy principally as a place of residence by the owner. See section 5(1)(n) RTA.
The applicant produced an agreement headed “House – sharing agreement”. Under this heading was recorded “House sharing agreements between owner and other flatmates are not covered under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986”. The agreement recorded [The owner] as Owner and [The flatmate] and her young son as Flatmate. The agreement was signed by both parties and dated 30 March 2024. The agreement recorded that in the event of any dispute it will be determined by the Disputes Tribunal.
[The owner] stated that he purchased the premises in March 2024 and moved to live there and that [The flatmate] and her son were flatmates. They each had a bedroom which they furnished. The remainder of the house was furnished by [The owner]. He paid the outgoings which were in his name. [The flatmate] paid him $500 per week plus $30 per week towards power.
I have considered the evidence of both parties in this case including the nature of the relationship being owner and flatmate, the wording of the agreement signed, the fact that the owner lived in the premises. I find on the balance of probabilities that this tenancy is excluded from the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as the premises were principally the place of residence of the owner and [The flatmate] was a flatmate.
Accordingly, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the matter under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If the parties are in dispute, they have agreed to this matter being determined by the Disputes Tribunal and either party may choose to file a claim there if they are unable to resolve matters between themselves.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The applicant has applied for suppression. The applicant has not been successful with her claim, however, having considered the factors in this case I consider that the interests of the parties outweigh the public interest in their names being published and grant suppression of all party identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by teleconference.

The applicant has applied for bond refund.

The application was set down today to consider whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with this claim.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The respondent claimed that he is the owner of the premises and the applicant is in a flatmate arrangement.

The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute that exists between a landlord and a tenant and relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies. See section 77(1) (a) and (b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

There are some exclusions to the Act which include that the Act is excluded where the premises continue to be used during the tenancy principally as a place of residence by the owner. See section 5(1)(n) RTA.

The applicant produced an agreement headed “House – sharing agreement”. Under this heading was recorded “House sharing agreements between owner and other flatmates are not covered under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986”. The agreement recorded [The owner] as Owner and [The flatmate] and her young son as Flatmate. The agreement was signed by both parties and dated 30 March 2024. The agreement recorded that in the event of any dispute it will be determined by the Disputes Tribunal.

[The owner] stated that he purchased the premises in March 2024 and moved to live there and that [The flatmate] and her son were flatmates. They each had a bedroom which they furnished. The remainder of the house was furnished by [The owner]. He paid the outgoings which were in his name. [The flatmate] paid him $500 per week plus $30 per week towards power.

I have considered the evidence of both parties in this case including the nature of the relationship being owner and flatmate, the wording of the agreement signed, the fact that the owner lived in the premises. I find on the balance of probabilities that this tenancy is excluded from the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as the premises were principally the place of residence of the owner and [The flatmate] was a flatmate.

Accordingly, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the matter under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

If the parties are in dispute, they have agreed to this matter being determined by the Disputes Tribunal and either party may choose to file a claim there if they are unable to resolve matters between themselves.

The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The applicant has applied for suppression. The applicant has not been successful with her claim, however, having considered the factors in this case I consider that the interests of the parties outweigh the public interest in their names being published and grant suppression of all party identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5034569 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5034569 — Tenancy dispute

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