What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5154571 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5154571?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5154571?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5154571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11912901-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5154571 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5154571?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5154571?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5154571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11912901-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

71 Collins Road, Melville, Hamilton 3206 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5154571 — Boarding House

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.

This was a hearing to decide in the first instance, whether or not the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction over the dispute between the parties.

The Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) section 4 provides that the RTA includes all tenancy agreements except those that are excepted: “This Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.”

Section 5 of the RTA then lists exclusions to section 4, including the following at section (1)(n): “where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family:”

A boarding house is defined in section 66B of the RTA as a residential premises containing 1 or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants of the boarding house; and (b) occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time.

There is no suggestion from either party that the property in question is a boarding house.

Both parties agreed that Mr Ainsworth rented a room from Ms Petersen, and Ms Petersen who is the property owner continued to live at the same premises.

Mr Ainsworth endeavoured to create a separate area from the areas of the house that Ms Petersen used. That is not sufficient to make his area of the premises “self-contained”.

In determining whether a living arrangement falls within the jurisdiction of the RTA, the Tribunal looks at the intention of the parties and the function of the arrangement.

Mr Ainsworth accepted that when he moved into the property he was renting a bedroom. He stated that he then endeavoured to make it self-contained by adding a kitchenette because he didn’t like using the rest of the house. Mr Ainsworth’s area never contained a bathroom.

Mr Ainsworth stated that while he was living at the house, he moved between three different bedrooms. He accepted that the kitchen, bathroom and laundry were shared facilities that could be used by either party.

In my view, the circumstances of this living arrangement fall squarely within the exclusion of section 5(1)(n) of the RTA. This is because the property owner continued to live at property while Mr Ainsworth was living there and because the premises in question were not self-contained premises in as much as utility areas were shared (whether or not Mr Ainsworth chose to use them), and because Mr Ainsworth’s area was not a specific area but changed while he was living at the premises.

Because of this, the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over this dispute.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.

This was a hearing to decide in the first instance, whether or not the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction over the dispute between the parties.

There is no suggestion from either party that the property in question is a boarding house.

Both parties agreed that Mr Ainsworth rented a room from Ms Petersen, and Ms Petersen who is the property owner continued to live at the same premises.

Mr Ainsworth endeavoured to create a separate area from the areas of the house that Ms Petersen used. That is not sufficient to make his area of the premises “self-contained”.

In determining whether a living arrangement falls within the jurisdiction of the RTA, the Tribunal looks at the intention of the parties and the function of the arrangement.

Because of this, the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over this dispute.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5154571 — Boarding House at 71 Collins Road, Melville, Hamilton 3206

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5154571 — Boarding House at 71 Collins Road, Melville, Hamilton 3206

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions