What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5375027 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 5375027?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5375027?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5375027?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13080140-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5375027 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 5375027?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5375027?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5375027?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13080140-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5375027 — Boarding House

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address.
By way of declaration, the tenancy is an excluded tenancy under section 5(1)(n) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Tribunal accordingly has no jurisdiction to determine the dispute.
The application is struck out.

Reasons

[The tenant/s], the applicant tenant, attended the teleconference hearing. The phone number for [The landlord/s], the last three digits being 011, was called twice without any response. As [The landlord/s] was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
[The tenant/s] has applied for refund of the bond. The Tribunal was initially required to decide whether it had jurisdiction to hear the claim.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claim?

Generally speaking, the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided. See section 4 RTA.
Section 5 of the RTA specifies the situations in which the application of the RTA is excluded.
Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides that the RTA shall not apply 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.
[The tenant/s] said he rented a room and ensuite bathroom in a house that he understood was owned by [The landlord/s]. He explained it was a 3-bedroom house, in which [The landlord/s] had her own bedroom, he had a bedroom and ensuite and there was a third bedroom. [The tenant/s] said that, for one month during his tenancy, the third bedroom was used by [The landlord/s] for Airbnb guests to stay.
[The tenant/s] indicated there was no written tenancy agreement between he and [The landlord/s], that he paid a bond to her but that he never received any confirmation from Tenancy Services that [The landlord/s] had lodged the bond. He said he had asked [The landlord/s] for a written tenancy agreement but she told him she did not provide one.
[The tenant/s] said that he shared most facilities with [The landlord/s], or the Airbnb guests, such as the kitchen, living room, laundry, and that his monthly power and internet expenses were included in the rent he paid.
He indicated that [The landlord/s] would come and go from the property and stay for a few days, then leave, and return at other times, always staying in her own bedroom. He said she asked him to water the plants when she was away.
[The tenant/s] further explained that when the Airbnb guests stayed for a whole month in the third bedroom, they also used the shared facilities with him and were supposed to keep the shared facilities clean and tidy, but did not.
Given the evidence I find this premises is not a boarding house as defined by section 66B of the RTA.
I find that the evidence that both [The tenant/s] and [The landlord/s] co-habited in the same premises, that the premises were owned by [The landlord/s], that the third bedroom was used for Airbnb guests of [The landlord/s], that all parties living or staying at the property used shared facilities such as the kitchen, living room and laundry and that each person living or staying there was jointly responsible for keeping the premises clean and tidy, shows it is likely the premises continued to be used principally as a place of residence by the owner, [The landlord/s], during the tenancy. Therefore, this tenancy is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
As the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the claims, the application is struck out.
The applicant can obtain advice as to the appropriate forum to address the dispute. Suppression
The applicant requested name suppression.
As I find the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the claim, and the application is struck out, I find the parties’ interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their names. Therefore, I order that the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(4) RTA.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address.
By way of declaration, the tenancy is an excluded tenancy under section 5(1)(n) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Tribunal accordingly has no jurisdiction to determine the dispute.
The application is struck out.

Reasons

[The tenant/s], the applicant tenant, attended the teleconference hearing. The phone number for [The landlord/s], the last three digits being 011, was called twice without any response. As [The landlord/s] was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
[The tenant/s] has applied for refund of the bond. The Tribunal was initially required to decide whether it had jurisdiction to hear the claim.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claim?

Generally speaking, the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided. See section 4 RTA.
Section 5 of the RTA specifies the situations in which the application of the RTA is excluded.
Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides that the RTA shall not apply 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.
[The tenant/s] said he rented a room and ensuite bathroom in a house that he understood was owned by [The landlord/s]. He explained it was a 3-bedroom house, in which [The landlord/s] had her own bedroom, he had a bedroom and ensuite and there was a third bedroom. [The tenant/s] said that, for one month during his tenancy, the third bedroom was used by [The landlord/s] for Airbnb guests to stay.
[The tenant/s] indicated there was no written tenancy agreement between he and [The landlord/s], that he paid a bond to her but that he never received any confirmation from Tenancy Services that [The landlord/s] had lodged the bond. He said he had asked [The landlord/s] for a written tenancy agreement but she told him she did not provide one.
[The tenant/s] said that he shared most facilities with [The landlord/s], or the Airbnb guests, such as the kitchen, living room, laundry, and that his monthly power and internet expenses were included in the rent he paid.
He indicated that [The landlord/s] would come and go from the property and stay for a few days, then leave, and return at other times, always staying in her own bedroom. He said she asked him to water the plants when she was away.
[The tenant/s] further explained that when the Airbnb guests stayed for a whole month in the third bedroom, they also used the shared facilities with him and were supposed to keep the shared facilities clean and tidy, but did not.
Given the evidence I find this premises is not a boarding house as defined by section 66B of the RTA.
I find that the evidence that both [The tenant/s] and [The landlord/s] co-habited in the same premises, that the premises were owned by [The landlord/s], that the third bedroom was used for Airbnb guests of [The landlord/s], that all parties living or staying at the property used shared facilities such as the kitchen, living room and laundry and that each person living or staying there was jointly responsible for keeping the premises clean and tidy, shows it is likely the premises continued to be used principally as a place of residence by the owner, [The landlord/s], during the tenancy. Therefore, this tenancy is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
As the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the claims, the application is struck out.
The applicant can obtain advice as to the appropriate forum to address the dispute. Suppression
The applicant requested name suppression.
As I find the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the claim, and the application is struck out, I find the parties’ interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their names. Therefore, I order that the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(4) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5375027 — Boarding House

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5375027 — Boarding House

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claim?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claim?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions