What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5120128 about?

The tribunal order states: The tribunal orders suppression of all names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5120128?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5120128?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5120128?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11584019-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5120128 about?

The tribunal order states: The tribunal orders suppression of all names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5120128?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5120128?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5120128?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11584019-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5120128 — Boarding House

Order

The tribunal orders suppression of all names and identifying details.
By way of declaration, it is noted that the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the relationship or agreement between the parties.
The application is struck out.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted via teleconference.
This hearing was convened to consider jurisdiction.
The tenancy formed via a signed House sharing agreement and commenced 12 August 2024. There was an agreement titled “Rental agreement (room)”. The copy provided to the Tribunal was not signed by either of the parties. The respondent is recorded as the “owner”.
The applicant confirmed that, “I am writing to confirm that the landlord resides at the tenancy address along with his wife and two children. Additionally, I shared the bathroom, toilet, and kitchen facilities with them.”

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

The Tribunal’s general jurisdiction, under s77(1) of the RTA is to: “...determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that— (a)exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b)relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time.”
Section 2 RTA provides that a “landlord” and “tenant” are respectively grantor and grantee 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...” rent, means any money, goods, services, or other valuable consideration in the nature of rent to be paid or supplied under a tenancy agreement by the tenant; but does not include any sum of money payable or paid by way of bond”
Section 5 of the RTA details exclusions to the RTA. Section 5(n) specifically excludes arrangements where the premises are being used for residence by the landlord or family. This section envisages owners of a home renting out their spare rooms in a flatmate or boarding type situation.
The exception to this exception is if the premise is a boarding house. A boarding house is defined in section 66B of the RTA as residential premises containing one or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants of the boarding house that is occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least six tenants at any one time. This is clearly not a boarding house situation as there was no intention or actuality of the landlords having six other flatmates/boarders at any one time.
A ‘flatmate’ resides in the premises by way of a licence from the owner of the premises In Musson v Dobrisek & Ors DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006-032-36, 5 May 2006, Judge Broadmore considered the definition of a flatmate. He states (at para [22]: “By ‘flatmates’ I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, all occupants are on the same footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens.”
As discussed at the hearing, having considered this situation I am satisfied that it clearly falls within the exception detailed in s 5(n) of the RTA. This is the landlords’ home, and they rented out the spare room to the tenant to reside in for a period. Accordingly, this was a boarding or flatmate arrangement, which is not one the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction over. Therefore, if the tenant wishes to progress her claim, she needs to file an application in the Disputes Tribunal. Suppression
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to suppress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion if in the applicant or public interest to do so. The tenant sought suppression in their application and although they were not successful, as the application was genuinely mistakenly filed, I consider it just to suppress the identifying details. Settlement
The parties are not far about in agreeing how to settle this dispute. They are encouraged to seek to conclude that, otherwise the Disputes Tribunal will be the obvious pathway from here.

Order

The tribunal orders suppression of all names and identifying details.
By way of declaration, it is noted that the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the relationship or agreement between the parties.
The application is struck out.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted via teleconference.
This hearing was convened to consider jurisdiction.
The tenancy formed via a signed House sharing agreement and commenced 12 August 2024. There was an agreement titled “Rental agreement (room)”. The copy provided to the Tribunal was not signed by either of the parties. The respondent is recorded as the “owner”.
The applicant confirmed that, “I am writing to confirm that the landlord resides at the tenancy address along with his wife and two children. Additionally, I shared the bathroom, toilet, and kitchen facilities with them.”

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

The Tribunal’s general jurisdiction, under s77(1) of the RTA is to: “...determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that— (a)exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b)relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time.”
Section 2 RTA provides that a “landlord” and “tenant” are respectively grantor and grantee 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...” rent, means any money, goods, services, or other valuable consideration in the nature of rent to be paid or supplied under a tenancy agreement by the tenant; but does not include any sum of money payable or paid by way of bond”
Section 5 of the RTA details exclusions to the RTA. Section 5(n) specifically excludes arrangements where the premises are being used for residence by the landlord or family. This section envisages owners of a home renting out their spare rooms in a flatmate or boarding type situation.
The exception to this exception is if the premise is a boarding house. A boarding house is defined in section 66B of the RTA as residential premises containing one or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants of the boarding house that is occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least six tenants at any one time. This is clearly not a boarding house situation as there was no intention or actuality of the landlords having six other flatmates/boarders at any one time.
A ‘flatmate’ resides in the premises by way of a licence from the owner of the premises In Musson v Dobrisek & Ors DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006-032-36, 5 May 2006, Judge Broadmore considered the definition of a flatmate. He states (at para [22]: “By ‘flatmates’ I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, all occupants are on the same footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens.”
As discussed at the hearing, having considered this situation I am satisfied that it clearly falls within the exception detailed in s 5(n) of the RTA. This is the landlords’ home, and they rented out the spare room to the tenant to reside in for a period. Accordingly, this was a boarding or flatmate arrangement, which is not one the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction over. Therefore, if the tenant wishes to progress her claim, she needs to file an application in the Disputes Tribunal. Suppression
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to suppress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion if in the applicant or public interest to do so. The tenant sought suppression in their application and although they were not successful, as the application was genuinely mistakenly filed, I consider it just to suppress the identifying details. Settlement
The parties are not far about in agreeing how to settle this dispute. They are encouraged to seek to conclude that, otherwise the Disputes Tribunal will be the obvious pathway from here.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5120128 — Boarding House

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5120128 — Boarding House

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions