What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5212051 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5212051?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5212051?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5212051?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11726424-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5212051 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5212051?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5212051?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5212051?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11726424-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 27, 31 Farndon Road, Clive, Clive 4102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5212051 — Rent arrears

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
By way of declaration, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine this application.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties initially attended the hearing.
The tenant had mistakenly thought the hearing was tomorrow but was able to be contacted by phone. However, after repeatedly being asked to stop interrupting while the landlord spoke to her application, the tenant chose not to participate. Background
The landlord owns a caravan that is parked at the Clive motor camp.
On 13 June 2024 the parties entered into an agreement regarding the caravan. It is titled “Residential Tenancy Agreement Until Purchase Completed” (“the Agreement”).
The Agreement provides for the tenant to have the right to occupy the caravan, paying a rent of $250.00 per week, “.....subject to the provisions of this lease”.
Of note, clause 25 of the Agreement provides: “A sale and purchase agreement has been signed and approved and is with [the tenant’s] lawyer. Settlement date is February 2027. The chattels included in the sale and purchase agreement will not be replaced or repaired from now. Channels are in ”as is where is” condition. The purchaser’s $250.00 weekly fee only covers the camp fees and insurance for the caravan. The landlord is not receiving any rental income....”. A copy of that signed sale and purchase agreement was not provided in evidence.
Clauses 43 to 45 of the Agreement provide for the tenant to have an option to purchase the property for $115,000.00, able to be exercised at any time before 20 February 2027 on the basis that, “Upon expiration of the option, the landlord will be released from all obligations to sell their property to the tenant.”
The landlord confirms that there was no insurance for the caravan put in place because she could not get cover. A dispute developed between the parties after the tenant took out insurance for the caravan and tried to recover the cost from the landlord.
The landlord brought this application seeking termination of the tenancy for non- payment of rent and an order for payment of rent arrears.
The landlord confirms that the tenant has vacated, and the landlord retook possession of the caravan yesterday. Jurisdiction
An initial issue arises as to whether the parties’ arrangement is subject to the Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”) and therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
This is an agreement for the residential occupation of the caravan.
Section 2 RTA defines tenancy as, “.....the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent...”
Clause 25 of the Agreement provides that “The landlord is not receiving any rental income.” However, “rent” is broadly defined in s.2 RTA and the agreement does provide for monetary payments to be made by the tenant to the landlord in consideration for the right of occupation.
I find that the Agreement creates a residential tenancy.
The next question is whether this is a residential tenancy of a type that is excluded from the RTA. The relevant exclusion is in s.5(1)(o), which provides that the RTA does not apply, “....where the tenant is the purchaser of the premises under an agreement for sale and purchase with the landlord as vendor, not being an agreement that is revocable at will by the vendor.”
The Agreement explicitly records that the tenant is the purchaser under an agreement for sale and purchase. The landlord was not able to able to revoke the sale and purchase agreement at will. The provisions of s.5(1)(o) appear to directly apply.
The landlord says that in essence though, this was not a sale/ purchase arrangement but a residential tenancy agreement, with an additional and separate term that until February 2027, the tenant had an option to purchase the caravan on the agreed basis.
With respect, that is not how I interpret the parties’ agreement. It seems to me at its core an agreement for sale and purchase of the caravan, with the tenant having the right to occupy the caravan until completion of the purchase.
Central terms of the Agreement that are consistent with an intended sale and purchase but inconsistent with a residential tenancy are: a. that “rent” was fixed on the basis of the tenant only covering the landlord’s costs until completion of the sale; and b. that the landlord’s obligation to maintain or repair chattels specifically ended when the agreement was signed; and c. generally, all maintenance and repair obligations rested with the tenant.
The efforts made by the tenant to ensure the caravan was insured are consistent with him at least believing that he had an interest in the caravan different than that of a tenant.
I find that the parties’ Agreement is one that is excluded from the provisions of the RTA by s.5(1)(o).
For the reasons given, I do not find that the parties intended to nevertheless make their agreement subject to the RTA under s.8.
I comment that even if I had found the RTA to apply, I would have dismissed the landlord’s claim. The arrangement has ended and possession was yesterday returned to the landlord. An Order for possession is not required.
For most of the term of the Agreement, the tenant paid rent of $250.00 per week. In terms of clause 25, the landlord was not to receive rental income but only a weekly fee to cover camp fees and insurance. In fact, the landlord was not able to insure the caravan so has paid no insurance premiums and has only paid camp fees of $180.00 per week. The total rent paid by the tenant up to termination is greater than the total camp fees paid by the landlord during that period.
No Order is made in respect of the filing fee.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
By way of declaration, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine this application.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties initially attended the hearing.
The tenant had mistakenly thought the hearing was tomorrow but was able to be contacted by phone. However, after repeatedly being asked to stop interrupting while the landlord spoke to her application, the tenant chose not to participate. Background
The landlord owns a caravan that is parked at the Clive motor camp.
On 13 June 2024 the parties entered into an agreement regarding the caravan. It is titled “Residential Tenancy Agreement Until Purchase Completed” (“the Agreement”).
The Agreement provides for the tenant to have the right to occupy the caravan, paying a rent of $250.00 per week, “.....subject to the provisions of this lease”.
Of note, clause 25 of the Agreement provides: “A sale and purchase agreement has been signed and approved and is with [the tenant’s] lawyer. Settlement date is February 2027. The chattels included in the sale and purchase agreement will not be replaced or repaired from now. Channels are in ”as is where is” condition. The purchaser’s $250.00 weekly fee only covers the camp fees and insurance for the caravan. The landlord is not receiving any rental income....”. A copy of that signed sale and purchase agreement was not provided in evidence.
Clauses 43 to 45 of the Agreement provide for the tenant to have an option to purchase the property for $115,000.00, able to be exercised at any time before 20 February 2027 on the basis that, “Upon expiration of the option, the landlord will be released from all obligations to sell their property to the tenant.”
The landlord confirms that there was no insurance for the caravan put in place because she could not get cover. A dispute developed between the parties after the tenant took out insurance for the caravan and tried to recover the cost from the landlord.
The landlord brought this application seeking termination of the tenancy for non- payment of rent and an order for payment of rent arrears.
The landlord confirms that the tenant has vacated, and the landlord retook possession of the caravan yesterday. Jurisdiction
An initial issue arises as to whether the parties’ arrangement is subject to the Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”) and therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
This is an agreement for the residential occupation of the caravan.
Section 2 RTA defines tenancy as, “.....the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent...”
Clause 25 of the Agreement provides that “The landlord is not receiving any rental income.” However, “rent” is broadly defined in s.2 RTA and the agreement does provide for monetary payments to be made by the tenant to the landlord in consideration for the right of occupation.
I find that the Agreement creates a residential tenancy.
The next question is whether this is a residential tenancy of a type that is excluded from the RTA. The relevant exclusion is in s.5(1)(o), which provides that the RTA does not apply, “....where the tenant is the purchaser of the premises under an agreement for sale and purchase with the landlord as vendor, not being an agreement that is revocable at will by the vendor.”
The Agreement explicitly records that the tenant is the purchaser under an agreement for sale and purchase. The landlord was not able to able to revoke the sale and purchase agreement at will. The provisions of s.5(1)(o) appear to directly apply.
The landlord says that in essence though, this was not a sale/ purchase arrangement but a residential tenancy agreement, with an additional and separate term that until February 2027, the tenant had an option to purchase the caravan on the agreed basis.
With respect, that is not how I interpret the parties’ agreement. It seems to me at its core an agreement for sale and purchase of the caravan, with the tenant having the right to occupy the caravan until completion of the purchase.
Central terms of the Agreement that are consistent with an intended sale and purchase but inconsistent with a residential tenancy are: a. that “rent” was fixed on the basis of the tenant only covering the landlord’s costs until completion of the sale; and b. that the landlord’s obligation to maintain or repair chattels specifically ended when the agreement was signed; and c. generally, all maintenance and repair obligations rested with the tenant.
The efforts made by the tenant to ensure the caravan was insured are consistent with him at least believing that he had an interest in the caravan different than that of a tenant.
I find that the parties’ Agreement is one that is excluded from the provisions of the RTA by s.5(1)(o).
For the reasons given, I do not find that the parties intended to nevertheless make their agreement subject to the RTA under s.8.
I comment that even if I had found the RTA to apply, I would have dismissed the landlord’s claim. The arrangement has ended and possession was yesterday returned to the landlord. An Order for possession is not required.
For most of the term of the Agreement, the tenant paid rent of $250.00 per week. In terms of clause 25, the landlord was not to receive rental income but only a weekly fee to cover camp fees and insurance. In fact, the landlord was not able to insure the caravan so has paid no insurance premiums and has only paid camp fees of $180.00 per week. The total rent paid by the tenant up to termination is greater than the total camp fees paid by the landlord during that period.
No Order is made in respect of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5212051 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 27, 31 Farndon Road, Clive, Clive 4102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5212051 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 27, 31 Farndon Road, Clive, Clive 4102

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