What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5049871 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 5049871?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5049871?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5049871?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11393667-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5049871 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 5049871?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5049871?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5049871?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11393667-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5049871 — Boarding House

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
It is Ordered by way of declaration that the tenancy is an excluded tenancy under section 5(1)(n) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The Tribunal accordingly has no jurisdiction to determine the dispute.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was scheduled by videoconference. The landlord attended by telephone.
This is a claim brought by the tenant for refund of his bond and for compensation.
The landlord claims that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the tenant’s claim on the basis that the tenancy is excluded from the RTA by s.5(1)(n) which provides that the RTA does not apply: “...where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.” The Premises
The premises comprise a 4 bedroom villa together with a garage repurposed for use as accommodation.
The tenant moved into the main house in mid-October 2023. No agreement was documented.
At that time the tenant was the only person staying in the main house. The landlord was living in the garage. There is a difference in recollection as to how much the landlord shared use of the facilities in the main house during that time but my finding does not turn on that point.
In November 2023, 5 others moved into the main house. They stayed through to December then moved out. After that, the landlord moved back into the main house and apart from a friend of the landlord’s who came to stay, no other tenants occupied it. The tenant moved out in July 2024.
The 5 tenants who lived at the premises from November to December 2023 brought an application to the Tribunal (4773317). The Order made by the Tribunal in that application, dated 20 March 2024 (“March 2024 Order”) found that the tenancy was excluded under s.5(1)(n) and the Tribunal accordingly lacked jurisdiction to hear their claim.
In the March 2024 Order, the Tribunal noted the landlord’s continued occupation of the premises (as a whole) with belongings stored in the main house throughout. It noted that this is the landlord’s family home and found use of the premises as the landlord’s home, to be its principal purpose. That finding fits with the evidence I considered today and I make the same finding.
The question is then whether these premises were a boarding house, defined in s.66B RTA as follows: ”boarding house means residential premises— (a) containing 1 or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants of the boarding house; and (b) occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time “boarding house tenancy means a residential tenancy in a boarding house—(a) that is intended to, or that does in fact, last for 28 days or more; and (b) under which the 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”
I am satisfied that the tenant had exclusive use of a room and shared facilities in the main house, indented to last 28 days or more, so this was a boarding house tenancy if the premises themselves were a boarding house.
The March 2024 Order notes that the size of the main house, with 4 bedrooms does not fit with an intended use as a place of ongoing occupation for at least 6 tenants. The Order notes too that there were only six tenants living in the premises for a very short time. At the time the agreement was entered into, the tenant was the only occupant of the main house and he was the only tenant to live there, apart from a very short period over November/ December 2024.
Having heard and assessed these parties’ evidence, I come to the same conclusion as my colleague reached in the March 2024 Order, that these premises were not substantively,“.....occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time.”
I therefore find too that this tenancy is excluded from the RTA by s.5(1)(n).
For the sake of completeness I note that there are Orders of the Tribunal in relation to the same landlord and the same address, in applications 4404900, 5426229 and 5049871. It seems clear from the files that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear those claims, as they related to a tenancy of the whole of the main house.
No Order is made in respect of the filing fee.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
It is Ordered by way of declaration that the tenancy is an excluded tenancy under section 5(1)(n) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The Tribunal accordingly has no jurisdiction to determine the dispute.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was scheduled by videoconference. The landlord attended by telephone.
This is a claim brought by the tenant for refund of his bond and for compensation.
The landlord claims that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the tenant’s claim on the basis that the tenancy is excluded from the RTA by s.5(1)(n) which provides that the RTA does not apply: “...where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.” The Premises
The premises comprise a 4 bedroom villa together with a garage repurposed for use as accommodation.
The tenant moved into the main house in mid-October 2023. No agreement was documented.
At that time the tenant was the only person staying in the main house. The landlord was living in the garage. There is a difference in recollection as to how much the landlord shared use of the facilities in the main house during that time but my finding does not turn on that point.
In November 2023, 5 others moved into the main house. They stayed through to December then moved out. After that, the landlord moved back into the main house and apart from a friend of the landlord’s who came to stay, no other tenants occupied it. The tenant moved out in July 2024.
The 5 tenants who lived at the premises from November to December 2023 brought an application to the Tribunal (4773317). The Order made by the Tribunal in that application, dated 20 March 2024 (“March 2024 Order”) found that the tenancy was excluded under s.5(1)(n) and the Tribunal accordingly lacked jurisdiction to hear their claim.
In the March 2024 Order, the Tribunal noted the landlord’s continued occupation of the premises (as a whole) with belongings stored in the main house throughout. It noted that this is the landlord’s family home and found use of the premises as the landlord’s home, to be its principal purpose. That finding fits with the evidence I considered today and I make the same finding.
The question is then whether these premises were a boarding house, defined in s.66B RTA as follows: ”boarding house means residential premises— (a) containing 1 or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants of the boarding house; and (b) occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time “boarding house tenancy means a residential tenancy in a boarding house—(a) that is intended to, or that does in fact, last for 28 days or more; and (b) under which the 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”
I am satisfied that the tenant had exclusive use of a room and shared facilities in the main house, indented to last 28 days or more, so this was a boarding house tenancy if the premises themselves were a boarding house.
The March 2024 Order notes that the size of the main house, with 4 bedrooms does not fit with an intended use as a place of ongoing occupation for at least 6 tenants. The Order notes too that there were only six tenants living in the premises for a very short time. At the time the agreement was entered into, the tenant was the only occupant of the main house and he was the only tenant to live there, apart from a very short period over November/ December 2024.
Having heard and assessed these parties’ evidence, I come to the same conclusion as my colleague reached in the March 2024 Order, that these premises were not substantively,“.....occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time.”
I therefore find too that this tenancy is excluded from the RTA by s.5(1)(n).
For the sake of completeness I note that there are Orders of the Tribunal in relation to the same landlord and the same address, in applications 4404900, 5426229 and 5049871. It seems clear from the files that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear those claims, as they related to a tenancy of the whole of the main house.
No Order is made in respect of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5049871 — Boarding House

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5049871 — Boarding House

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