What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5248933 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 5248933?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5248933?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12486222-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5248933 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 5248933?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5248933?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12486222-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

27 Dudley Street, Hutt Central, Lower Hutt 5010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5248933 — Leaks

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing and were represented by their directors.

These parties had a commercial lease for the downstairs shop. The tenant applied to the Tribunal because he said he signed a residential tenancy for the upstairs space, and it was not fit for use as a residential tenancy. The matter was referred to me for a hearing about jurisdiction.

It is agreed evidence the downstairs was used as a business and there was a commercial lease for that. Any dispute about the downstairs tenancy, rent owed, or work done by the tenant in lieu of the commercial rent cannot be decided by the Tribunal. This is because I have the jurisdiction to deal with residential tenancies. See section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

In support of his claim there was a residential tenancy for the upstairs the tenant provided me with a signed residential tenancy agreement dated July 2024, and some emails. The tenant said he lived upstairs from October 2024, after the police cleared some squatters. There was also information from Genesis that proves the tenant paid power for the upstairs from 21 January until 6 April 2025. The tenant’s mother gave evidence as a witness. She said the tenant lived downstairs, sleeping on a sofa bed. She said he did try to live upstairs but the poor condition and the leaks meant it was not suitable for living in. She said he used the shower upstairs.

The landlord company director owns the building. He said the building has consent for commercial use only, and provided a rates bill in support. He said in the past the upstairs was used for commercial tenants and is set up as offices. He said the upstairs has not been rented out since 2018, but the contractor doing the seismic strengthening housed his workers upstairs. The director said he never signed a tenancy agreement, and he would never have agreed to someone living upstairs. He said he did agree the tenant could use one room upstairs for storage, in exchange for the tenant keeping an eye on the place.

The landlord’s witness was someone who helps him with the business, including with the downstairs tenant. The witness gave evidence that he drafted a residential tenancy agreement to help the tenant out, and he was hoping to persuade the landlord “after the fact” to rent the upstairs to the tenant. The witness said the agreement was still in draft form and it was never signed. He said he had no idea whether the Council would allow the upstairs to be used as residential premises. As supporting evidence I was provided with emails sent in December still referring to a draft lease.

I have considered all the evidence. It seems most likely to me there was never a signed residential tenancy agreement for the upstairs. This is because it makes no sense for the signed tenancy agreement to be dated in July 2024 when there are emails discussing important details, such as rent and the start date, still being sent in December.

I find I do not have jurisdiction because there was no residential tenancy. The tenant’s application is dismissed.

I have exercised my discretion to allow suppression for the names because any interest is in the law. See section 95A RTA.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed because there is no jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing and were represented by their directors.
These parties had a commercial lease for the downstairs shop. The tenant applied to the Tribunal because he said he signed a residential tenancy for the upstairs space, and it was not fit for use as a residential tenancy. The matter was referred to me for a hearing about jurisdiction.
It is agreed evidence the downstairs was used as a business and there was a commercial lease for that. Any dispute about the downstairs tenancy, rent owed, or work done by the tenant in lieu of the commercial rent cannot be decided by the Tribunal. This is because I have the jurisdiction to deal with residential tenancies. See section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
In support of his claim there was a residential tenancy for the upstairs the tenant provided me with a signed residential tenancy agreement dated July 2024, and some emails. The tenant said he lived upstairs from October 2024, after the police cleared some squatters. There was also information from Genesis that proves the tenant paid power for the upstairs from 21 January until 6 April 2025. The tenant’s mother gave evidence as a witness. She said the tenant lived downstairs, sleeping on a sofa bed. She said he did try to live upstairs but the poor condition and the leaks meant it was not suitable for living in. She said he used the shower upstairs.
The landlord company director owns the building. He said the building has consent for commercial use only, and provided a rates bill in support. He said in the past the upstairs was used for commercial tenants and is set up as offices. He said the upstairs has not been rented out since 2018, but the contractor doing the seismic strengthening housed his workers upstairs. The director said he never signed a tenancy agreement, and he would never have agreed to someone living upstairs. He said he did agree the tenant could use one room upstairs for storage, in exchange for the tenant keeping an eye on the place.
The landlord’s witness was someone who helps him with the business, including with the downstairs tenant. The witness gave evidence that he drafted a residential tenancy agreement to help the tenant out, and he was hoping to persuade the landlord “after the fact” to rent the upstairs to the tenant. The witness said the agreement was still in draft form and it was never signed. He said he had no idea whether the Council would allow the upstairs to be used as residential premises. As supporting evidence I was provided with emails sent in December still referring to a draft lease.
I have considered all the evidence. It seems most likely to me there was never a signed residential tenancy agreement for the upstairs. This is because it makes no sense for the signed tenancy agreement to be dated in July 2024 when there are emails discussing important details, such as rent and the start date, still being sent in December.
I find I do not have jurisdiction because there was no residential tenancy. The tenant’s application is dismissed.
I have exercised my discretion to allow suppression for the names because any interest is in the law. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5248933 — Leaks at 27 Dudley Street, Hutt Central, Lower Hutt 5010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5248933 — Leaks at 27 Dudley Street, Hutt Central, Lower Hutt 5010

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