What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5077288 about?

The tribunal order states: The order dated 24 April 2025 is amended as an error was made (at

How much money was awarded in case 5077288?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5077288?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5077288?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11758879-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5077288 about?

The tribunal order states: The order dated 24 April 2025 is amended as an error was made (at

How much money was awarded in case 5077288?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5077288?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5077288?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11758879-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 7, 167 Parkhurst Road, Parakai, Parakai 0830 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5077288 — Healthy homes

Order

The order dated 24 April 2025 is amended as an error was made (at paragraphs 3 and 7) in relation to the applicant for the rehearing application.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 19 February 2025 the Tribunal made an order for exemplary damages.
On 24 February 2025, Peter Williams applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the premises are camping grounds rather than a residential tenancy.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.
Usually the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing or they were not able to properly present their case. A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome.
The District Court has held that if the Tribunal was simply wrong in its findings of fact, or its application of the law, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice: a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. Furthermore, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Peter Williams has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The order made on 19 February 2025 determined that the premises are within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal and therefore subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
At the rehearing consideration hearing the landlord has produced a Certificate of Registration as a camping ground which expires on 30 September 2025 and correspondence from an Auckland Council employee in relation to compliance with the Camping-Grounds Regulations 1985.
In addition, the landlord produced documents stating that the Healthy Homes standards do not apply to campgrounds, as they are not considered rental dwellings under the law. The documents state that “a rental property, in the context of the Healthy Homes standards, is defined as a dwelling where people reside on a regular basis as tenants”. It further states that “campgrounds are typically outdoor spaces used for temporary accommodation and are not considered rental properties under the Healthy Homes standards”.
It appears likely that the above documents have been obtained from the Tenancy Services website under the Healthy Homes section.
The landlord disagrees with the Tribunal in relation to the decision that the relationship between the parties is tenant and landlord and therefore that this was a residential tenancy. The argument submitted is that the premises is a camping ground under licence and subject to the Camping-Grounds Regulations 1985.
There are two exclusions in the Residential Tenancies Act that may have applied to this situation.
Section 5(1)(k) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that “the Act shall not apply whether the premises – i.Are intended to provide temporary or transient accommodation (such as that provided by hotels and motels), being accommodation that is ordinarily provided for periods of less than 28 days at a time; and ii.Are subject to an agreement that has been entered into for the purpose of providing temporary or transient accommodation that continues to be provided under the agreement.”
Section 5(1)(ta) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that “the Act shall not apply where the tenant occupies, under a tenancy agreement, a cabin, caravan, vehicle, tent, or other building or structure that – i.Is located in a camping-ground subject to regulations under the Health Act 1956; and ii.Is intended for human habitation for periods not exceeding 50 days in any continuous term of occupancy".
The order dated 19 February 2025 sets out 1 the rent paid and the length of this tenancy. The tenant had lived in the premises, which was self-contained, for more than two years. When the tenant filed his application in the Tenancy Tribunal 2 he was paying $280.00 per week for rent.
Neither of the above exclusions apply to this situation. There was no written agreement between the parties or any evidence that the accommodation was intended to be for a period of less than 28 days or not exceeding 50 days.
The High Court has confirmed 3 that long term rentals in campgrounds can fall within the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and that is the situation here. I confirm the Tribunal’s earlier decision that the premises is a residential tenancy and therefore within the jurisdiction of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Order

The order dated 24 April 2025 is amended as an error was made (at paragraphs 3 and 7) in relation to the applicant for the rehearing application.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 19 February 2025 the Tribunal made an order for exemplary damages.
On 24 February 2025, Peter Williams applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the premises are camping grounds rather than a residential tenancy.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.
Usually the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing or they were not able to properly present their case. A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome.
The District Court has held that if the Tribunal was simply wrong in its findings of fact, or its application of the law, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice: a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. Furthermore, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Peter Williams has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The order made on 19 February 2025 determined that the premises are within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal and therefore subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
At the rehearing consideration hearing the landlord has produced a Certificate of Registration as a camping ground which expires on 30 September 2025 and correspondence from an Auckland Council employee in relation to compliance with the Camping-Grounds Regulations 1985.
In addition, the landlord produced documents stating that the Healthy Homes standards do not apply to campgrounds, as they are not considered rental dwellings under the law. The documents state that “a rental property, in the context of the Healthy Homes standards, is defined as a dwelling where people reside on a regular basis as tenants”. It further states that “campgrounds are typically outdoor spaces used for temporary accommodation and are not considered rental properties under the Healthy Homes standards”.
It appears likely that the above documents have been obtained from the Tenancy Services website under the Healthy Homes section.
The landlord disagrees with the Tribunal in relation to the decision that the relationship between the parties is tenant and landlord and therefore that this was a residential tenancy. The argument submitted is that the premises is a camping ground under licence and subject to the Camping-Grounds Regulations 1985.
There are two exclusions in the Residential Tenancies Act that may have applied to this situation.
Section 5(1)(k) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that “the Act shall not apply whether the premises – i.Are intended to provide temporary or transient accommodation (such as that provided by hotels and motels), being accommodation that is ordinarily provided for periods of less than 28 days at a time; and ii.Are subject to an agreement that has been entered into for the purpose of providing temporary or transient accommodation that continues to be provided under the agreement.”
Section 5(1)(ta) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that “the Act shall not apply where the tenant occupies, under a tenancy agreement, a cabin, caravan, vehicle, tent, or other building or structure that – i.Is located in a camping-ground subject to regulations under the Health Act 1956; and ii.Is intended for human habitation for periods not exceeding 50 days in any continuous term of occupancy".
The order dated 19 February 2025 sets out 1 the rent paid and the length of this tenancy. The tenant had lived in the premises, which was self-contained, for more than two years. When the tenant filed his application in the Tenancy Tribunal 2 he was paying $280.00 per week for rent.
Neither of the above exclusions apply to this situation. There was no written agreement between the parties or any evidence that the accommodation was intended to be for a period of less than 28 days or not exceeding 50 days.
The High Court has confirmed 3 that long term rentals in campgrounds can fall within the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and that is the situation here. I confirm the Tribunal’s earlier decision that the premises is a residential tenancy and therefore within the jurisdiction of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5077288 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 7, 167 Parkhurst Road, Parakai, Parakai 0830

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5077288 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat 7, 167 Parkhurst Road, Parakai, Parakai 0830

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions