How much money was awarded in case 5395422?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5395422?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5395422?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13390960-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5395422?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5395422?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5395422?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13390960-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5395422 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5395422 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the respondent tenant’s name 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

Mr Hou, the applicant landlord, and [The tenant/s], the respondent tenant, both attended the video conference hearing.
Mr Hou has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and refund of the filing fee.
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.
Mr Hou provided a copy of the agreement signed by both parties, called a Flat/House Sharing Agreement, which provided that any disputes would be dealt with by the Disputes Tribunal.
Mr Hou confirmed that he owns the property that is the subject of his application and that he and his wife and young daughter also lived at the property during the time [The tenant/s] resided there. Additionally, Mr Hou said there was another flatmate in the other master bedroom.
Mr Hou explained that there are 6 bedrooms at the property and the 2 master bedrooms are rented out to flatmates. He said that his family and the two flatmates all share common living areas such as the kitchen, living and dining rooms, and that all share the cleaning of these common areas also. Mr Hou indicated that each of the flatmates has their own toilet in their bedroom, and that there is a separate laundry for both flatmates to the one his family uses. Mr Hou said he was not sure whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear his claims.
[The tenant/s] confirmed that Mr Hou owns the property, that she rented a master bedroom at the property and lived there with Mr Hou and his family and another flatmate, who was also a student. [The tenant/s] said they shared common facilities such as the kitchen and living areas and that she helped clean these areas.
[The tenant/s] said she did not believe the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear Mr Hou’s claims, as it was not a standard residential tenancy. She believed the living situation was more that of a flatmate with a licence to occupy the property.
Given the evidence I find this premises is not a boarding house as defined by section 66B of the RTA.
As the evidence from both parties was that [The tenant/s] lived at the property in one of the master bedrooms, along with another student renting the other master bedroom, and that Mr Hou and his family all also lived at the same property at the same time, and given the evidence that all the parties shared common areas, such as the kitchen, living and dining rooms, and shared jobs for those common areas, such as the cleaning, and given the agreement signed by both parties was a Flat/House Sharing agreement that provided that any disputes would be determined by the Disputes Tribunal, I find it likely the premises continued to be used principally as a place of residence by the owner, Mr Hou, and his family 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 respondent tenant requested name suppression. The applicant landlord did not request 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 respondent tenant’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their name. Therefore, I order that the respondent tenant’s name 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 respondent tenant’s name 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

Mr Hou, the applicant landlord, and [The tenant/s], the respondent tenant, both attended the video conference hearing.

Mr Hou has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and refund of the filing fee.

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.

Mr Hou provided a copy of the agreement signed by both parties, called a Flat/House Sharing Agreement, which provided that any disputes would be dealt with by the Disputes Tribunal.

Mr Hou confirmed that he owns the property that is the subject of his application and that he and his wife and young daughter also lived at the property during the time [The tenant/s] resided there. Additionally, Mr Hou said there was another flatmate in the other master bedroom.

Mr Hou explained that there are 6 bedrooms at the property and the 2 master bedrooms are rented out to flatmates. He said that his family and the two flatmates all share common living areas such as the kitchen, living and dining rooms, and that all share the cleaning of these common areas also. Mr Hou indicated that each of the flatmates has their own toilet in their bedroom, and that there is a separate laundry for both flatmates to the one his family uses. Mr Hou said he was not sure whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear his claims.

[The tenant/s] confirmed that Mr Hou owns the property, that she rented a master bedroom at the property and lived there with Mr Hou and his family and another flatmate, who was also a student. [The tenant/s] said they shared common facilities such as the kitchen and living areas and that she helped clean these areas.

[The tenant/s] said she did not believe the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear Mr Hou’s claims, as it was not a standard residential tenancy. She believed the living situation was more that of a flatmate with a licence to occupy the property.

Given the evidence I find this premises is not a boarding house as defined by section 66B of the RTA.

As the evidence from both parties was that [The tenant/s] lived at the property in one of the master bedrooms, along with another student renting the other master bedroom, and that Mr Hou and his family all also lived at the same property at the same time, and given the evidence that all the parties shared common areas, such as the kitchen, living and dining rooms, and shared jobs for those common areas, such as the cleaning, and given the agreement signed by both parties was a Flat/House Sharing agreement that provided that any disputes would be determined by the Disputes Tribunal, I find it likely the premises continued to be used principally as a place of residence by the owner, Mr Hou, and his family 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 respondent tenant requested name suppression. The applicant landlord did not request 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 respondent tenant’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their name. Therefore, I order that the respondent tenant’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(4) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5395422 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5395422 — Rent arrears

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