What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5400395?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5400395?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5400395?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5400395?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13059322-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5400395?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5400395?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5400395?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5400395?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13059322-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Gladfield Lane, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5400395 — Boarding House

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

This was a hearing to decide in the first instance, whether or not the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction over the dispute between the parties. Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.

The Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) section 4 provides that the RTA includes all tenancy agreements except those that are excepted: “This Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.”

Section 5 of the RTA then lists exclusions to section 4, including the following at section (1)(n): “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:”

A boarding house is defined in section 66B of the RTA as a residential premises containing 1 or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants of the boarding house; and (b) occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time.

The landlord explained that five people in total pay rent for living at the premises. Because this is less than six tenants, I determine this is not a boarding house.

Both parties agreed that Ms Courtney rented a bedroom from Ms Angelou, and Ms Angelou who is the property owner continued to live at the same premises.

The agreement signed by both parties states explicitly that the arrangement is not covered by the RTA. That does not mean it is so; the Tribunal will make its own determination on the matter, but I am interested in what the intent of the parties was at the start of the tenancy. In this case I note that the “landlord’s” understanding was that the RTA did not apply and the tenant accepted this.

Ms Courtney rented a room from Ms Angelou, in a house that Ms Angelou continued to live in.

The written agreement says that bathrooms are “semi-private” and that the kitchen is shared.

Today both Ms Courtney and Ms Angelou agree that both the tenants and the landlord shared the kitchen and lounge.

If the owner/landlord of the premises continues to live in the same “house” but there is a complete separation between the owner/landlord and the tenant’s areas, including separate entrances, kitchen, bathroom and laundry, it may well be the case that the tenancy does fall under the RTA.

Where there are shared utility areas this indicates the arrangement does not fall within the RTA, as the owner/landlord is living “side by side” with the tenant. This is a flatting or boarding situation.

In my view, the circumstances of this living arrangement fall squarely within the exclusion of section 5(1)(n) of the RTA. This is because the property owner continued to live at property while Ms Courtney was living there and because the premises in question were not self-contained premises and the premises was not a boarding house.

Because of this, the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over this dispute.

Reasons

The landlord explained that five people in total pay rent for living at the premises. Because this is less than six tenants, I determine this is not a boarding house.

Both parties agreed that Ms Courtney rented a bedroom from Ms Angelou, and Ms Angelou who is the property owner continued to live at the same premises.

Ms Courtney rented a room from Ms Angelou, in a house that Ms Angelou continued to live in.

The written agreement says that bathrooms are “semi-private” and that the kitchen is shared.

Today both Ms Courtney and Ms Angelou agree that both the tenants and the landlord shared the kitchen and lounge.

Because of this, the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over this dispute.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5400395 — Boarding House at 3 Gladfield Lane, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5400395 — Boarding House at 3 Gladfield Lane, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610

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