What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5035950 about?

The tribunal order states: The names of [The tenant/s] are suppressed, along with [The tenant’s

How much money was awarded in case 5035950?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5035950?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5035950?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11255056-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5035950 about?

The tribunal order states: The names of [The tenant/s] are suppressed, along with [The tenant’s

How much money was awarded in case 5035950?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5035950?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5035950?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11255056-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5035950 — Rent arrears

Order

The names of [The tenant/s] are suppressed, along with [The tenant’s representative].
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
[Tenant 1] was represented by his daughter, [The tenant’s representative].
Mr and Mrs Wells have applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and water rates.
In around 1994 / 1995, [Tenant 1] was employed by the landlord’s business as a builder. His employment continued on until around 2015.
In around 2005, [Tenant 1] and his wife, [Tenant 2], entered into a rent to buy agreement relating to [Tenancy address suppressed]. A copy of this agreement was sent to the Tribunal during the hearing.
The purchase price was fixed at $224,500 and was vendor financed. The term of that finance was 30 years. The weekly payments were $469.80. According to Mr Wells, about $100 of the weekly payment would go towards the purchase of the property; the rest was rent.
The vendor was Envys Investments Ltd, a company of which Mr Wells is the director and Mrs Wells is the shareholder.
The agreement allowed [The tenant/s] to reside at the property and expressly recorded that it was not to constitute a tenancy agreement.
Mr Wells claims that in 2009, [Tenant 1] wanted to bring the rent to buy agreement to an end. The housing market was in a slump and allegedly he no longer wanted to own the property. Mr Wells said he agreed to release him and asked him to sign a cancellation agreement. A copy of that was produced to the Tribunal but it is not signed. It is dated 15 April 2011. It records:
At the request of the Purchaser the Sale and Purchase Agreement ("the Agreement") dated 11 th March 2005 between the parties is now cancelled.
It is agreed between the Purchaser and the Vendor that no money is owed by either party per clause 22.2 (iii) and all arrears, utilities, rates and insurance are 0.
The Purchaser may remain at and occupy the property as a tenant as per the Tenancy Agreement dated 11 th March 2005.
The rent has been agreed at $350 per week to be paid in advance.
Mr Wells said that the reason there was no amount payable back to [Tenant 1] at this time was because the financing was modelled on a table mortgage basis, and therefore that most of the payments that had been made towards the purchase price comprised of interest. He said there was negative equity in the property.
[Tenant 1] denies agreeing to the cancellation.
In September 2012, Mr and Mrs Wells entered into a tenancy agreement with [The tenant/s].
[The tenant/s] had no legal advice on the rent to buy, the purported cancelation of the rent to buy, or the tenancy agreement.
In around 2015, [Tenant 1] ceased working for Mr Wells. The circumstances of this led to some acrimony.
In 2016, an application was made to the Tenancy Tribunal by Mr Wells for rent arrears and for termination.
On 9 August 2016, Adjudicator Tam issued a decision declining jurisdiction. After setting out the background facts, he said:
Mr Wells claims that the sale and purchase agreement has been ended by [Tenant 1] when he said "he wanted out" and offered to rent the premises instead. If Mr Well's evidence is to be accepted, question arises as to whether and how the sale and purchase agreement had come to an end and if so, how the "instalments" paid over a 5 year period from 2005 to 2010 are to be apportioned between the parties in accordance with the terms and conditions of the sale and purchase agreement.
[The tenant/s] however says that it was Mr Wells who unilaterally decided in 2010 "not to sell" the premises to the purchasers and instead offered to rent the premises to them for "rent" at
$350.00 which was subsequently paid. If [The tenant/s] evidence is to be accepted, there is a likelihood that the sale and purchase agreement had not been properly or lawfully terminated and all payments made by the purchasers must still be accounted for, whether the payments are classified as "instalments", "rent" or otherwise.
Section 5(1)(o) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 ('the Act') provides that the Act shall not apply in a case where the tenant is the purchaser of the premises under an agreement for sale and purchase with the landlord as vendor, not being an agreement that is revocable at will by the vendor.
The sale and purchase agreement between the parties here is not expressed to be one that is revocable at will by the vendor.
In the circumstances, the Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear this claim that is brought by Mr Wells.
According to [Tenant 1], he sought legal advice after this ruling and was told to await the outcome of the claim before he would need to apply for legal aid. He was never served with any claim.
[Tenant 1] claims that sometimes he was not paid his wages, and the agreement was that the money would go towards the rent to buy / rent. Mr Wells strongly denies this.
Mr Wells submits that [The tenant/s] have invented a new story about all the foregoing events. He submits that they have had a change of mind about the property, now that the property market has moved on since 2009.
He submits that the prior adjudicator was simply wrong.
He explained that the reason he took no further steps after that determination to obtain any orders from the Courts about the rent to buy agreement was because he has been suffering from an illness for a ten year period. Decision
All of the above information was available to be put before the prior adjudicator, who reached a decision declining jurisdiction, applying s 5(1)(o) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Mr Wells chose not to appeal that decision, even though he disagreed with it and considered the adjudicator was wrong. Nor did he commence any proceeding in the District or High Court to seek a determination regarding the validity of the rent to buy agreement and the purported cancelation.
Mr Wells has essentially filed the same application, against the same parties, and I consider the same issue applies, namely, whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction or not.
The application involves the same parties, litigating in the same capacity and on the same issue.
The grounds for issue estoppel are met. 1
The application is dismissed on the basis that the matter has already been decided. Mr Wells will need to pursue this matter through another forum.
The respondents have succeeded and they are entitled to name suppression.

Order

The names of [The tenant/s] are suppressed, along with [The tenant’s representative].
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
[Tenant 1] was represented by his daughter, [The tenant’s representative].
Mr and Mrs Wells have applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and water rates.
In around 1994 / 1995, [Tenant 1] was employed by the landlord’s business as a builder. His employment continued on until around 2015.
In around 2005, [Tenant 1] and his wife, [Tenant 2], entered into a rent to buy agreement relating to [Tenancy address suppressed]. A copy of this agreement was sent to the Tribunal during the hearing.
The purchase price was fixed at $224,500 and was vendor financed. The term of that finance was 30 years. The weekly payments were $469.80. According to Mr Wells, about $100 of the weekly payment would go towards the purchase of the property; the rest was rent.
The vendor was Envys Investments Ltd, a company of which Mr Wells is the director and Mrs Wells is the shareholder.
The agreement allowed [The tenant/s] to reside at the property and expressly recorded that it was not to constitute a tenancy agreement.
Mr Wells claims that in 2009, [Tenant 1] wanted to bring the rent to buy agreement to an end. The housing market was in a slump and allegedly he no longer wanted to own the property. Mr Wells said he agreed to release him and asked him to sign a cancellation agreement. A copy of that was produced to the Tribunal but it is not signed. It is dated 15 April 2011. It records:
At the request of the Purchaser the Sale and Purchase Agreement ("the Agreement") dated 11 th March 2005 between the parties is now cancelled.
It is agreed between the Purchaser and the Vendor that no money is owed by either party per clause 22.2 (iii) and all arrears, utilities, rates and insurance are 0.
The Purchaser may remain at and occupy the property as a tenant as per the Tenancy Agreement dated 11 th March 2005.
The rent has been agreed at $350 per week to be paid in advance.
Mr Wells said that the reason there was no amount payable back to [Tenant 1] at this time was because the financing was modelled on a table mortgage basis, and therefore that most of the payments that had been made towards the purchase price comprised of interest. He said there was negative equity in the property.
[Tenant 1] denies agreeing to the cancellation.
In September 2012, Mr and Mrs Wells entered into a tenancy agreement with [The tenant/s].
[The tenant/s] had no legal advice on the rent to buy, the purported cancelation of the rent to buy, or the tenancy agreement.
In around 2015, [Tenant 1] ceased working for Mr Wells. The circumstances of this led to some acrimony.
In 2016, an application was made to the Tenancy Tribunal by Mr Wells for rent arrears and for termination.
On 9 August 2016, Adjudicator Tam issued a decision declining jurisdiction. After setting out the background facts, he said:
Mr Wells claims that the sale and purchase agreement has been ended by [Tenant 1] when he said "he wanted out" and offered to rent the premises instead. If Mr Well's evidence is to be accepted, question arises as to whether and how the sale and purchase agreement had come to an end and if so, how the "instalments" paid over a 5 year period from 2005 to 2010 are to be apportioned between the parties in accordance with the terms and conditions of the sale and purchase agreement.
[The tenant/s] however says that it was Mr Wells who unilaterally decided in 2010 "not to sell" the premises to the purchasers and instead offered to rent the premises to them for "rent" at
$350.00 which was subsequently paid. If [The tenant/s] evidence is to be accepted, there is a likelihood that the sale and purchase agreement had not been properly or lawfully terminated and all payments made by the purchasers must still be accounted for, whether the payments are classified as "instalments", "rent" or otherwise.
Section 5(1)(o) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 ('the Act') provides that the Act shall not apply in a case where the tenant is the purchaser of the premises under an agreement for sale and purchase with the landlord as vendor, not being an agreement that is revocable at will by the vendor.
The sale and purchase agreement between the parties here is not expressed to be one that is revocable at will by the vendor.
In the circumstances, the Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear this claim that is brought by Mr Wells.
According to [Tenant 1], he sought legal advice after this ruling and was told to await the outcome of the claim before he would need to apply for legal aid. He was never served with any claim.
[Tenant 1] claims that sometimes he was not paid his wages, and the agreement was that the money would go towards the rent to buy / rent. Mr Wells strongly denies this.
Mr Wells submits that [The tenant/s] have invented a new story about all the foregoing events. He submits that they have had a change of mind about the property, now that the property market has moved on since 2009.
He submits that the prior adjudicator was simply wrong.
He explained that the reason he took no further steps after that determination to obtain any orders from the Courts about the rent to buy agreement was because he has been suffering from an illness for a ten year period. Decision
All of the above information was available to be put before the prior adjudicator, who reached a decision declining jurisdiction, applying s 5(1)(o) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Mr Wells chose not to appeal that decision, even though he disagreed with it and considered the adjudicator was wrong. Nor did he commence any proceeding in the District or High Court to seek a determination regarding the validity of the rent to buy agreement and the purported cancelation.
Mr Wells has essentially filed the same application, against the same parties, and I consider the same issue applies, namely, whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction or not.
The application involves the same parties, litigating in the same capacity and on the same issue.
The grounds for issue estoppel are met. 1
The application is dismissed on the basis that the matter has already been decided. Mr Wells will need to pursue this matter through another forum.
The respondents have succeeded and they are entitled to name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5035950 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5035950 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions