What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5093548 about?

The tribunal order states: The application against respondent personally, and as trustee of his Family

How much money was awarded in case 5093548?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5093548?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5093548?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11439329-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5093548 about?

The tribunal order states: The application against respondent personally, and as trustee of his Family

How much money was awarded in case 5093548?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5093548?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5093548?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11439329-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5093548 — 14-day notice

Order

The application against respondent personally, and as trustee of his Family Trust are dismissed.
The Tribunal orders suppression of the Respondent’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by teleconference.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. That means that he must prove that the claims he has made are more likely than not, to be true.
The applicant claims that he occupied a residence owned by the respondent as a result of an agreement provided for by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The respondent disputes that there was an agreement where rent was paid for the occupation of the premises.
The parties do not dispute most of the facts of the case. There are some minor differences regarding dates but they are of no consequence.
The applicant travelled from Nelson to carry out a variety of work for the respondent in the [name suppressed]. The applicant was paid $500.00 per week, in cash, by the respondent. The applicant initially lived at the respondent’s house, being provided with free room and board. The applicant was able to continue staying at the respondent’s house but preferred to occupy another house owned by the respondent when a companion arrived. The house is named [name suppressed]. The [name suppressed was in need of repair because of leaks and other issues. The applicant did some repairs while staying in the [name suppressed]. The respondent continued to pay the $500.00 to the applicant in cash.
A work dispute arose between the parties that was not related to the house. In the course of their dispute, emails passed between the parties. In two emails the respondent mentioned that the applicant had been receiving the benefit of free weekly rent (worth $250.00) and power while staying at the [name suppressed]. The applicant has claimed that he has been charged rent that he should not have had to pay and that the House did not meet Healthy Homes Standards.
The question for the Tribunal is whether this was a residential tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies.
The first issue to consider is whether there was an agreement in place between the parties for a tenancy or simply just a chance given for the applicant to live at the [name suppressed]. There was no evidence made available to the Tribunal regarding pre tenancy discussions, discussions about rent or a bond or the level of work required to be carried out by the applicant if he was to stay there. Nor is there any evidence showing that there was a dispute between the parties about the condition of the house or 14 days notices being sent by the applicant to the respondent during the time the applicant occupied it. The evidence is persuasive that the applicant chose to occupy a vacant house and carry out repairs while there but there was no legally binding relationship regarding his move there.
There is also the question of whether the occupation of the premises was a tenancy. Section 2 of the RTA provides as follows regarding the definition of a ‘tenancy’. tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment.....
I am satisfied that the emails between the parties clearly show that the applicant was not being charged rent for his occupation of the premises. He was given the opportunity to live in premises without paying rent or without any agreement that he must provide a particular level of repairs to the house in order to stay there. The applicant has not proved that his occupation of the [name suppressed] was a tenancy. This is also consistent with other evidence. The applicant is an experienced landlord of 30 years but did not require a written tenancy agreement or a schedule setting out where the [name suppressed] failed Healthy Homes Standards. Had he done so it is more than likely that the respondent would not have permitted the respondent to occupy the premises.
In summary, there is insufficient evidence to prove that the permission given for the applicant to occupy the [name suppressed] was a residential tenancy agreement to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies. The applicant requested and was permitted to stay in a vacant property and the respondent gave him an opportunity to stay there. The emails do not prove that the applicant was charged rent for the property. They show the respondent’s frustration regarding the applicant’s demand for money and his view that he had given the applicant the benefit of rent free accommodation worth $250.00 per week. The application is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The claim regarding Healthy Homes Standards is dismissed. The standards do not apply where accommodation is not covered by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The condition of the [name suppressed] at the time the applicant chose to occupy it shows he was not concerned about Healthy Homes Standards. It suited his purpose to be there and not pay rent.
In summary, this claim has no merit. It borders on being frivolous and vexatious. The only benefit this case has is that the respondent has been made aware that he needs to be very careful about people occupying premises for rent or rent free. Filing Fee
Because the applicant has been unsuccessful with the claim the filing fee is not ordered. Suppression
The Tribunal may, on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (s.95A(4). In the current case the respondent has been completely successful in his defence of the claim and suppression is ordered.

Order

The application against respondent personally, and as trustee of his Family Trust are dismissed.
The Tribunal orders suppression of the Respondent’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by teleconference.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. That means that he must prove that the claims he has made are more likely than not, to be true.
The applicant claims that he occupied a residence owned by the respondent as a result of an agreement provided for by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The respondent disputes that there was an agreement where rent was paid for the occupation of the premises.
The parties do not dispute most of the facts of the case. There are some minor differences regarding dates but they are of no consequence.
The applicant travelled from Nelson to carry out a variety of work for the respondent in the [name suppressed]. The applicant was paid $500.00 per week, in cash, by the respondent. The applicant initially lived at the respondent’s house, being provided with free room and board. The applicant was able to continue staying at the respondent’s house but preferred to occupy another house owned by the respondent when a companion arrived. The house is named [name suppressed]. The [name suppressed was in need of repair because of leaks and other issues. The applicant did some repairs while staying in the [name suppressed]. The respondent continued to pay the $500.00 to the applicant in cash.
A work dispute arose between the parties that was not related to the house. In the course of their dispute, emails passed between the parties. In two emails the respondent mentioned that the applicant had been receiving the benefit of free weekly rent (worth $250.00) and power while staying at the [name suppressed]. The applicant has claimed that he has been charged rent that he should not have had to pay and that the House did not meet Healthy Homes Standards.
The question for the Tribunal is whether this was a residential tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies.
The first issue to consider is whether there was an agreement in place between the parties for a tenancy or simply just a chance given for the applicant to live at the [name suppressed]. There was no evidence made available to the Tribunal regarding pre tenancy discussions, discussions about rent or a bond or the level of work required to be carried out by the applicant if he was to stay there. Nor is there any evidence showing that there was a dispute between the parties about the condition of the house or 14 days notices being sent by the applicant to the respondent during the time the applicant occupied it. The evidence is persuasive that the applicant chose to occupy a vacant house and carry out repairs while there but there was no legally binding relationship regarding his move there.
There is also the question of whether the occupation of the premises was a tenancy. Section 2 of the RTA provides as follows regarding the definition of a ‘tenancy’. tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment.....
I am satisfied that the emails between the parties clearly show that the applicant was not being charged rent for his occupation of the premises. He was given the opportunity to live in premises without paying rent or without any agreement that he must provide a particular level of repairs to the house in order to stay there. The applicant has not proved that his occupation of the [name suppressed] was a tenancy. This is also consistent with other evidence. The applicant is an experienced landlord of 30 years but did not require a written tenancy agreement or a schedule setting out where the [name suppressed] failed Healthy Homes Standards. Had he done so it is more than likely that the respondent would not have permitted the respondent to occupy the premises.
In summary, there is insufficient evidence to prove that the permission given for the applicant to occupy the [name suppressed] was a residential tenancy agreement to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies. The applicant requested and was permitted to stay in a vacant property and the respondent gave him an opportunity to stay there. The emails do not prove that the applicant was charged rent for the property. They show the respondent’s frustration regarding the applicant’s demand for money and his view that he had given the applicant the benefit of rent free accommodation worth $250.00 per week. The application is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The claim regarding Healthy Homes Standards is dismissed. The standards do not apply where accommodation is not covered by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The condition of the [name suppressed] at the time the applicant chose to occupy it shows he was not concerned about Healthy Homes Standards. It suited his purpose to be there and not pay rent.
In summary, this claim has no merit. It borders on being frivolous and vexatious. The only benefit this case has is that the respondent has been made aware that he needs to be very careful about people occupying premises for rent or rent free. Filing Fee
Because the applicant has been unsuccessful with the claim the filing fee is not ordered. Suppression
The Tribunal may, on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (s.95A(4). In the current case the respondent has been completely successful in his defence of the claim and suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5093548 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5093548 — 14-day notice

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