What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5097372 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 5097372?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5097372?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5097372?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11372329-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5097372 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 5097372?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5097372?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5097372?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11372329-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

299 Okete Road, Raglan, RD 1, Raglan 3295 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5097372 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The first matter to determine is whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the dispute between the parties. Background

The Respondents own a large lifestyle block. In around 2021 they agreed to lease some of their land to the Applicant, in exchange for an annual lease payment. The Applicant was able to move on to the land, what is described in documents as a ‘tiny home on wheels’. The Applicant is solely responsible for the tiny home and advises that if the lease ended, she would technically be able to take all improvements with her.

However, the Applicant submits that it would be difficult to remove the home, particularly as she has installed an additional storage shed, rental unit and utilities (including a septic tank). Accordingly, the applicant says that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) should apply as it suits the specific circumstances.

The relevant lease agreement is in dispute; however, the lease agreement provided in support of the claim does not refer to the RTA and instead includes a dispute resolution clause (including mediation and arbitration with specific providers).

The Respondent submits that the RTA does not apply, and that it is a lease for bare land, which is an exception to the RTA. They also submit, that the tiny home could be removed, and it still includes a chassis underneath. They say they have only leased land and have no interest in the additions that the Applicant has added to the land, they have simply allowed her make additions and install a septic tank for comfort. The law

The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to hearing and determining disputes between landlords and tenants (and between landlords and a guarantor of a tenant) provided the dispute is in relation to a tenancy that comes within the RTA.

The starting point in answering the question of whether the tenancy comes within the RTA is section 4 which provides that the RTA applies to all tenancies of residential premises unless specifically excluded.

Section 5(1)(t) of the RTA excludes occupancies: “where the premises comprise bare land (with or without facilities) on which the tenant has the right under the tenancy agreement to place or erect a mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter:”

Although I accept that the tiny home, services, and additional rental unit might be difficult to remove, the reality is that the lease or the agreement between the Applicant and Respondent is for the bare land only. How the tenant is then using that land in my view, does not change the underlying agreement or intention between the parties.

I therefore find that the occupancy falls within the section 5(1)(t) exclusion.

This means that the occupancy of the Applicant is not one which comes within the RTA and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the application.

The application is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. R Harvey-Lane 31 January 2025

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The first matter to determine is whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the dispute between the parties. Background

I therefore find that the occupancy falls within the section 5(1)(t) exclusion.

This means that the occupancy of the Applicant is not one which comes within the RTA and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the application.

The application is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. R Harvey-Lane 31 January 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5097372 — Tenancy dispute at 299 Okete Road, Raglan, RD 1, Raglan 3295

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5097372 — Tenancy dispute at 299 Okete Road, Raglan, RD 1, Raglan 3295

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