What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5146816 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the applicant’s and respondent’s names and

How much money was awarded in case 5146816?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5146816?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5146816?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12282089-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5146816 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the applicant’s and respondent’s names and

How much money was awarded in case 5146816?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5146816?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5146816?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12282089-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5146816 — State of repair

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the applicant’s and respondent’s names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Reasons

On 26 January 2025, the applicant filed a claim for compensation for breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards and for failing to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair. The matter was initially scheduled for hearing on 29 July 2025, but was later rescheduled to 18 August 2025.
The applicant has appeared. The respondent has appeared and sought an adjournment in order to be represented. The adjournment request was declined, and the matter has proceeded.
Having reviewed the application and heard from the parties there is a preliminary issue of jurisdiction. Law
Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies.
Residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful.
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; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy.
Tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises; and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement.
Section 2(1) defines rent as meaning 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. Evidence
There is no dispute that the property are residential premises. The issue is whether the applicants right to occupy the premises was in return for rent, in particular whether services were provided in lieu of rent.
The property is located on a farm. The respondents are co-owners. In November 2020, while working on the farm, the respondents were approached by the applicant, who stated that they needed a place to stay. The respondent states that the property had been empty for some time and was in a state of disrepair. This is confirmed by a building report commissioned by the applicant which confirmed that the property had several maintenance issues.
The respondent state that, out of sympathy for the applicant, they allowed them to stay in the property. The right to occupy, they say, was a bare license and not subject to rent or services in lieu of rent. The applicant undertook occasional farm work, which included milking on odd days, in return for utilities paid for by the respondent.
Around July 2024, the respondents asked whether the applicant knew of anyone who could assist with relief milking to cover staff days off. The applicant replied that they could assist, and agreed initially to cover two weekends a month, which later increased to three weekends.
The roof at the property is in a poor condition. The applicant states that the parties agreed that, in return for providing relief milking, the respondent would replace the roof. Despite carrying out the work, the roof was not replaced. The applicant also claims that, in addition to the rostered relief milking, they worked extra days and completed tasks for which they were to be paid.
There is no written agreement confirming the terms of the applicant’s right to occupy the property or any agreement regarding the provision of services in return for a new roof.
Around July 2024, the applicant ceased providing relief miking as they were no longer required by the respondent. The applicant remained in the property until vacating on 22 February 2025. During that time no further work was completed and no rent was paid.
The applicant states that they have filed applications with both the Tenancy and Disputes Tribunals. The applicant states the Disputes Tribunal have suggested that the Tenancy Tribunal should first determine whether the services provided were in lieu of rent, thereby creating a tenancy. If not, the claim may be one within the jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal.
Initially the parties agreed that the applicant’s occupation of the property was not in return for services in lieu of rent, and that any work done by the applicant was instead in return for a new roof. The respondent accepts that they did not replace the roof as promised. The relationship deteriorated when the roof was not replaced, and there is a dispute over whether the applicant had completed all of the relief milking claimed.
However, during the hearing the applicant stated that they had a conversation with one of the respondents, who said that if the applicant did not continue relief milking, they would have to leave. The respondents deny this, and note that between July 2024 and 22 February 2025, the applicant had remained in the property, during which time no work was completed, and no rent was paid. Decision
This is an unusual situation. Having heard from the parties, I am not satisfied that the applicant’s right to occupy was granted in return for rent, including services in lieu of rent. The parties did not enter into a residential tenancy agreement. I am satisfied that if the tenant ceased working, they would not have been required to vacate the property.
The intention of both parties was that the work completed by the applicant was in return for a new roof, and thereafter for which the applicant would be paid. While the respondent benefited from the labour provided by the tenant it was not in return for the right to occupy the property. Accordingly, the claims made by the applicant are declined for want of jurisdiction. Name suppression
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
The Tribunal has declined jurisdiction. The dispute has not been resolved. The Tribunal orders suppression of the name and details of both parties.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the applicant’s and respondent’s names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Reasons

On 26 January 2025, the applicant filed a claim for compensation for breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards and for failing to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair. The matter was initially scheduled for hearing on 29 July 2025, but was later rescheduled to 18 August 2025.
The applicant has appeared. The respondent has appeared and sought an adjournment in order to be represented. The adjournment request was declined, and the matter has proceeded.
Having reviewed the application and heard from the parties there is a preliminary issue of jurisdiction. Law
Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies.
Residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful.
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; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy.
Tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises; and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement.
Section 2(1) defines rent as meaning 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. Evidence
There is no dispute that the property are residential premises. The issue is whether the applicants right to occupy the premises was in return for rent, in particular whether services were provided in lieu of rent.
The property is located on a farm. The respondents are co-owners. In November 2020, while working on the farm, the respondents were approached by the applicant, who stated that they needed a place to stay. The respondent states that the property had been empty for some time and was in a state of disrepair. This is confirmed by a building report commissioned by the applicant which confirmed that the property had several maintenance issues.
The respondent state that, out of sympathy for the applicant, they allowed them to stay in the property. The right to occupy, they say, was a bare license and not subject to rent or services in lieu of rent. The applicant undertook occasional farm work, which included milking on odd days, in return for utilities paid for by the respondent.
Around July 2024, the respondents asked whether the applicant knew of anyone who could assist with relief milking to cover staff days off. The applicant replied that they could assist, and agreed initially to cover two weekends a month, which later increased to three weekends.
The roof at the property is in a poor condition. The applicant states that the parties agreed that, in return for providing relief milking, the respondent would replace the roof. Despite carrying out the work, the roof was not replaced. The applicant also claims that, in addition to the rostered relief milking, they worked extra days and completed tasks for which they were to be paid.
There is no written agreement confirming the terms of the applicant’s right to occupy the property or any agreement regarding the provision of services in return for a new roof.
Around July 2024, the applicant ceased providing relief miking as they were no longer required by the respondent. The applicant remained in the property until vacating on 22 February 2025. During that time no further work was completed and no rent was paid.
The applicant states that they have filed applications with both the Tenancy and Disputes Tribunals. The applicant states the Disputes Tribunal have suggested that the Tenancy Tribunal should first determine whether the services provided were in lieu of rent, thereby creating a tenancy. If not, the claim may be one within the jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal.
Initially the parties agreed that the applicant’s occupation of the property was not in return for services in lieu of rent, and that any work done by the applicant was instead in return for a new roof. The respondent accepts that they did not replace the roof as promised. The relationship deteriorated when the roof was not replaced, and there is a dispute over whether the applicant had completed all of the relief milking claimed.
However, during the hearing the applicant stated that they had a conversation with one of the respondents, who said that if the applicant did not continue relief milking, they would have to leave. The respondents deny this, and note that between July 2024 and 22 February 2025, the applicant had remained in the property, during which time no work was completed, and no rent was paid. Decision
This is an unusual situation. Having heard from the parties, I am not satisfied that the applicant’s right to occupy was granted in return for rent, including services in lieu of rent. The parties did not enter into a residential tenancy agreement. I am satisfied that if the tenant ceased working, they would not have been required to vacate the property.
The intention of both parties was that the work completed by the applicant was in return for a new roof, and thereafter for which the applicant would be paid. While the respondent benefited from the labour provided by the tenant it was not in return for the right to occupy the property. Accordingly, the claims made by the applicant are declined for want of jurisdiction. Name suppression
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
The Tribunal has declined jurisdiction. The dispute has not been resolved. The Tribunal orders suppression of the name and details of both parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5146816 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5146816 — State of repair

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