What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5264179 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at 21

How much money was awarded in case 5264179?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5264179?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5264179?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12327669-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5264179 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at 21

How much money was awarded in case 5264179?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5264179?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5264179?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12327669-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21 Limeburners Street, Morningside, Whangarei 0110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5264179 — Rent arrears

Order

[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at 21 Limeburners Street, Morningside, Whangarei 0110 at 8.00am on MONDAY 8 SEPTEMBER 2025.

Reasons

Background

Mr Hedges lives at 21 Limeburners Road. He rents out rooms in the house to boarders.
Mr Findalay is one of those boarders. He is supposed to pay $150.00 per week. He lives in the downstairs part of the house.
There is no written agreement. I understand that Mr Hedges gave Mr Findalay an “eviction notice”. I was not given a copy of that document. Mr Findalay stopped paying rent. By his own admission, he is about $1800.00 in arrears.
Mr Hedges’ application seeks termination, possession, and rent arrears.
The hearing took place in Whangarei today. Mr Hedges and Mr Findalay attended the hearing. Ms Cook-Farnham did not appear, and it is not obvious what connection that person has to these proceedings. Jurisdiction
The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine disputes between landlords and tenants in respect of tenancies that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) applies to.
The RTA does not apply where, during the tenancy, the premises are principally used as a place of residence by the landlord. 1
This exclusion does not apply if the premises is a boarding house. The RTA does apply to boarding house tenancies. A boarding house is defined as residential premises that are occupied, or are intended to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any time. 2
In this instance: a. The premises were principally used as a place of residence by Mr Hedges. b. This was a house sharing / boarding arrangement, not a residential tenancy. c. The premises do not meet the definition of a boarding house. Mr Hedges had, at most, 3 boarders at any time.
Therefore: a. The RTA does not apply to this tenancy. b. The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction, except to make a possession order as discussed below. Possession
The Tribunal may make an order for possession where: 3 a. The person bringing the application is entitled to possession of the premises; and b. Someone else is occupying the premises “otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation”.
The Tribunal can make such a possession order even where there is no tenancy in place.
In this instance: a. Mr Hedges owns all of 21 Limeburners Street and he is entitled to possession of it. 1 Section 5(1)(n) RTA 2 Section 66B RTA 3 Section 65 RTA b. Mr Hedges granted Mr Findalay the right to occupy part of the premises under the terms of a verbal agreement. There were no agreed terms about termination of the arrangement. One of the agreed terms was that Mr Findalay would pay rent of $150.00 per week. c. Mr Findalay’s insistence that he is entitled to 90-days’ notice of termination is without legal basis. The RTA does not apply. d. Mr Hedges was entitled to cancel the contract, not least because Mr Findalay was in breach of an essential term by not paying the agreed rent. e. Mr Findalay has no continuing legal right to occupy the premises.
Therefore, Mr Hedges is entitled to an order for possession, and I have made such an order.
Any other disputes between Mr Hedges and Mr Findalay must be brought to a forum that has jurisdiction, such as the Disputes Tribunal which has jurisdiction to hear contract based disputes up to a limit of $30,000.00. Power
Mr Findalay said that Mr Hedges intentionally cut the power to his part of the property.
Mr Hedges (through Mr Smith, who assisted him at the hearing) denied this and said that the power has gone off because Mr Findalay’s fridge has overloaded the circuit.
Mr Findalay insisted that I make an order requiring Mr Hedges to reinstate the power for the remainder of his occupancy. I am unable to make such an order because: a. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction, so I cannot make a work order; and b. It is not proven that Mr Hedges intentionally cut the power.
However, I will affirm Mr Findalay’s argument that Mr Hedges has no legal right to cut the power. It is appropriate to imply a term in the verbal boarding agreement that Mr Hedges will take reasonable steps to ensure the on-going supply of services (power, water etc) to the property.

Order

[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at 21 Limeburners Street, Morningside, Whangarei 0110 at 8.00am on MONDAY 8 SEPTEMBER 2025.

Reasons

Background

Mr Hedges lives at 21 Limeburners Road. He rents out rooms in the house to boarders.
Mr Findalay is one of those boarders. He is supposed to pay $150.00 per week. He lives in the downstairs part of the house.
There is no written agreement. I understand that Mr Hedges gave Mr Findalay an “eviction notice”. I was not given a copy of that document. Mr Findalay stopped paying rent. By his own admission, he is about $1800.00 in arrears.
Mr Hedges’ application seeks termination, possession, and rent arrears.
The hearing took place in Whangarei today. Mr Hedges and Mr Findalay attended the hearing. Ms Cook-Farnham did not appear, and it is not obvious what connection that person has to these proceedings. Jurisdiction
The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine disputes between landlords and tenants in respect of tenancies that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) applies to.
The RTA does not apply where, during the tenancy, the premises are principally used as a place of residence by the landlord. 1
This exclusion does not apply if the premises is a boarding house. The RTA does apply to boarding house tenancies. A boarding house is defined as residential premises that are occupied, or are intended to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any time. 2
In this instance: a. The premises were principally used as a place of residence by Mr Hedges. b. This was a house sharing / boarding arrangement, not a residential tenancy. c. The premises do not meet the definition of a boarding house. Mr Hedges had, at most, 3 boarders at any time.
Therefore: a. The RTA does not apply to this tenancy. b. The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction, except to make a possession order as discussed below. Possession
The Tribunal may make an order for possession where: 3 a. The person bringing the application is entitled to possession of the premises; and b. Someone else is occupying the premises “otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation”.
The Tribunal can make such a possession order even where there is no tenancy in place.
In this instance: a. Mr Hedges owns all of 21 Limeburners Street and he is entitled to possession of it. 1 Section 5(1)(n) RTA 2 Section 66B RTA 3 Section 65 RTA b. Mr Hedges granted Mr Findalay the right to occupy part of the premises under the terms of a verbal agreement. There were no agreed terms about termination of the arrangement. One of the agreed terms was that Mr Findalay would pay rent of $150.00 per week. c. Mr Findalay’s insistence that he is entitled to 90-days’ notice of termination is without legal basis. The RTA does not apply. d. Mr Hedges was entitled to cancel the contract, not least because Mr Findalay was in breach of an essential term by not paying the agreed rent. e. Mr Findalay has no continuing legal right to occupy the premises.
Therefore, Mr Hedges is entitled to an order for possession, and I have made such an order.
Any other disputes between Mr Hedges and Mr Findalay must be brought to a forum that has jurisdiction, such as the Disputes Tribunal which has jurisdiction to hear contract based disputes up to a limit of $30,000.00. Power
Mr Findalay said that Mr Hedges intentionally cut the power to his part of the property.
Mr Hedges (through Mr Smith, who assisted him at the hearing) denied this and said that the power has gone off because Mr Findalay’s fridge has overloaded the circuit.
Mr Findalay insisted that I make an order requiring Mr Hedges to reinstate the power for the remainder of his occupancy. I am unable to make such an order because: a. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction, so I cannot make a work order; and b. It is not proven that Mr Hedges intentionally cut the power.
However, I will affirm Mr Findalay’s argument that Mr Hedges has no legal right to cut the power. It is appropriate to imply a term in the verbal boarding agreement that Mr Hedges will take reasonable steps to ensure the on-going supply of services (power, water etc) to the property.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5264179 — Rent arrears at 21 Limeburners Street, Morningside, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5264179 — Rent arrears at 21 Limeburners Street, Morningside, Whangarei 0110

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