What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5123749 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 5123749?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5123749?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5123749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11438978-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5123749 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 5123749?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5123749?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5123749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11438978-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5123749 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the applicants’ and the respondent’s names and all identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The applicants attended the hearing, which was held by telephone. The respondent was rung twice at the start of the hearing on the number provided by the applicants on their application. Both calls went to voice mail.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The applicants claim the respondent had a tenancy and sought termination of the tenancy. Background
The applicants are co-owners of the property and are related. Their relationship consists of a mother, daughter and son-in-law relationship.
The respondent is the mother’s brother and her daughter’s uncle. The respondent was living with his and his sister’s parents until they passed away. The applicants agreed that he could move a cabin/whare onto their property for a short period until he found other accommodation. The cabin was shifted onto the property in around late October 2019. The respondent has added an extension to the cabin to accommodate a bathroom which is not properly plumbed.
The applicants are concerned about the untidy and unhygienic state of the cabin and extension, and the unused vehicles that are parked on their property. They have asked the respondent many times to keep the cabin in a clean and tidy condition. Early in 2024 they cleaned the cabin so that it met that standard and explained to the respondent that if he did not keep it in that condition and remove the vehicles they would give him 90 days to vacate.
The applicants say the cabin and extension has again become untidy and unhygienic and the cars have not been moved.

Does the Tribunal have the jurisdiction to hear and decide this claim?

Before considering the claim I need to determine whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to consider and determine the matter.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear disputes between landlords and tenants provided the dispute relates to a tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies (see section 77(1)).
Section 4, RTA provides that the Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically excluded. Section 5 sets out the exclusions and particular circumstances where the RTA does not apply.
Section 5(1)(t) provides that the RTA does not apply to premises that are bare land (with or without facilities) on which the tenant has the right under the tenancy agreement to put a mobile home, caravan or other means of shelter.
Here the applicants agreed the respondent could occupy their land and gave him the right to bring a cabin onto the land in which he can live 1 . The respondent does not enter the applicants’ dwellings but lives entirely in the cabin. The applicants confirmed they have not had any contact with the respondent for the last month.
The applicants raised that the land isn’t ‘bare’ as the property has 2 houses on it. However “bare land” has a dictionary meaning of “having no house attached” 2 . The applicants in this instance have given the respondent the right to put a cabin 1 I note they did not consent to the extension he has built onto the cabin. 2 See Collins Dictionary on land where there is no other house or building, which falls within that definition.
Accordingly I find the exclusion under section 5(1)(t) applies, and that the provisions of the RTA do not apply to this arrangement.
For completion I note that even had the cabin been owned by the applicants and provided to the respondent by them the RTA would not have applied as the respondent is a family member 3 , unless the applicants and the respondent had agreed in writing that the RTA applied. For example, by completing a residential tenancy agreement at the start of the arrangement.
For the above reasons I am unable to consider the applicant’s claim for termination. Other matter
Section 95A(4) RTA provides that 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.
This is a family matter. Having considered the interests of the parties and the public interest I find it appropriate to grant of my own initiative suppression of the names of all partied and the address details.

Reasons

The applicants attended the hearing, which was held by telephone. The respondent was rung twice at the start of the hearing on the number provided by the applicants on their application. Both calls went to voice mail.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The applicants claim the respondent had a tenancy and sought termination of the tenancy. Background

The applicants are co-owners of the property and are related. Their relationship consists of a mother, daughter and son-in-law relationship.

The respondent is the mother’s brother and her daughter’s uncle. The respondent was living with his and his sister’s parents until they passed away. The applicants agreed that he could move a cabin/whare onto their property for a short period until he found other accommodation. The cabin was shifted onto the property in around late October 2019. The respondent has added an extension to the cabin to accommodate a bathroom which is not properly plumbed.

The applicants are concerned about the untidy and unhygienic state of the cabin and extension, and the unused vehicles that are parked on their property. They have asked the respondent many times to keep the cabin in a clean and tidy condition. Early in 2024 they cleaned the cabin so that it met that standard and explained to the respondent that if he did not keep it in that condition and remove the vehicles they would give him 90 days to vacate.

The applicants say the cabin and extension has again become untidy and unhygienic and the cars have not been moved.

Does the Tribunal have the jurisdiction to hear and decide this claim?

Before considering the claim I need to determine whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to consider and determine the matter.

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear disputes between landlords and tenants provided the dispute relates to a tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies (see section 77(1)).

Section 4, RTA provides that the Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically excluded. Section 5 sets out the exclusions and particular circumstances where the RTA does not apply.

Section 5(1)(t) provides that the RTA does not apply to premises that are bare land (with or without facilities) on which the tenant has the right under the tenancy agreement to put a mobile home, caravan or other means of shelter.

Here the applicants agreed the respondent could occupy their land and gave him the right to bring a cabin onto the land in which he can live 1 . The respondent does not enter the applicants’ dwellings but lives entirely in the cabin. The applicants confirmed they have not had any contact with the respondent for the last month.

The applicants raised that the land isn’t ‘bare’ as the property has 2 houses on it. However “bare land” has a dictionary meaning of “having no house attached” 2 . The applicants in this instance have given the respondent the right to put a cabin 1 I note they did not consent to the extension he has built onto the cabin. 2 See Collins Dictionary on land where there is no other house or building, which falls within that definition.

Accordingly I find the exclusion under section 5(1)(t) applies, and that the provisions of the RTA do not apply to this arrangement.

For completion I note that even had the cabin been owned by the applicants and provided to the respondent by them the RTA would not have applied as the respondent is a family member 3 , unless the applicants and the respondent had agreed in writing that the RTA applied. For example, by completing a residential tenancy agreement at the start of the arrangement.

For the above reasons I am unable to consider the applicant’s claim for termination. Other matter

Section 95A(4) RTA provides that 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.

This is a family matter. Having considered the interests of the parties and the public interest I find it appropriate to grant of my own initiative suppression of the names of all partied and the address details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5123749 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5123749 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have the jurisdiction to hear and decide this claim?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have the jurisdiction to hear and decide this claim?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions