What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5407752 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 5407752?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407752?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407752?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13109466-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5407752 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 5407752?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407752?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407752?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13109466-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5407752 — 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 landlord/s] and the Mandarin Interpreter, [Interpreter], all attended the video conference hearing.
[The tenant/s] has applied for refund of the bond.
The Tribunal was required to determine initially whether it has jurisdiction to hear [The tenant/s] 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 landlord/s] said he owns the property and lives at the flat full time as his main residence. He indicated that, at the time [The tenant/s] lived at the flat, there was [The landlord/s], [The tenant/s] and another flatmate. He said there are three bedrooms at the flat. [The landlord/s] said that both [The tenant/s] and the other flatmate signed a Flat/House Sharing Agreement which showed [The landlord/s] as the head tenant and the others as tenants, agreeing that any disputes would be resolved by the Disputes Tribunal.
[The landlord/s] said that all three people living at the flat shared the facilities, such as the kitchen, living room, dining room, bathroom and laundry, and that the two flatmates, [The tenant/s] and the other flatmate were to clean up after using common areas.
[The tenant/s] confirmed he signed the Flat/House Sharing Agreement, that all three flatmates used common areas such as the kitchen, dining room, living room, bathroom and laundry, and that he was aware that [The landlord/s] owns the property and lives at the flat full time as his main residence.
[The landlord/s] said that [The tenant/s] insisted that [The landlord/s] was to lodge the bond he paid [The landlord/s] at the Tenancy Services Bond Centre. [The tenant/s] said that is what he thought was normal when renting a room. [The landlord/s] said he didn’t lodge the other flatmate’s bond but lodged [The tenant/s] bond with the Bond Centre, given [The tenant/s] insistence on this.
[The tenant/s]said he had already made an application to the Disputes Tribunal, but they had declined to deal with the dispute as the bond had been lodged at the Tenancy Services Bond Centre.
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 [The landlord/s] owns the property and lives at the property full time as his main residence, that all three flatmates, including [The landlord/s], shared common areas and facilities, such as the kitchen, bathroom, laundry, living room and dining room, and that the flatmates were expected to clean up after using common facilities, that the parties signed Flat/House Sharing Agreements listing [The landlord/s] as the head tenant and [The tenant/s] as a tenant, that the Flat/House Sharing Agreement provided that any disputes were to be determined by the Disputes Tribunal, 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, and how to deal with the bond that has been lodged with the Tenancy Services Bond Centre in error. Suppression
The respondent requested name suppression. The applicant said he did not mind about whether he was granted name suppression or not.
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 landlord/s] and the Mandarin Interpreter, [Interpreter], all attended the video conference hearing.
[The tenant/s] has applied for refund of the bond.
The Tribunal was required to determine initially whether it has jurisdiction to hear [The tenant/s] 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 landlord/s] said he owns the property and lives at the flat full time as his main residence. He indicated that, at the time [The tenant/s] lived at the flat, there was [The landlord/s], [The tenant/s] and another flatmate. He said there are three bedrooms at the flat. [The landlord/s] said that both [The tenant/s] and the other flatmate signed a Flat/House Sharing Agreement which showed [The landlord/s] as the head tenant and the others as tenants, agreeing that any disputes would be resolved by the Disputes Tribunal.
[The landlord/s] said that all three people living at the flat shared the facilities, such as the kitchen, living room, dining room, bathroom and laundry, and that the two flatmates, [The tenant/s] and the other flatmate were to clean up after using common areas.
[The tenant/s] confirmed he signed the Flat/House Sharing Agreement, that all three flatmates used common areas such as the kitchen, dining room, living room, bathroom and laundry, and that he was aware that [The landlord/s] owns the property and lives at the flat full time as his main residence.
[The landlord/s] said that [The tenant/s] insisted that [The landlord/s] was to lodge the bond he paid [The landlord/s] at the Tenancy Services Bond Centre. [The tenant/s] said that is what he thought was normal when renting a room. [The landlord/s] said he didn’t lodge the other flatmate’s bond but lodged [The tenant/s] bond with the Bond Centre, given [The tenant/s] insistence on this.
[The tenant/s]said he had already made an application to the Disputes Tribunal, but they had declined to deal with the dispute as the bond had been lodged at the Tenancy Services Bond Centre.
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 [The landlord/s] owns the property and lives at the property full time as his main residence, that all three flatmates, including [The landlord/s], shared common areas and facilities, such as the kitchen, bathroom, laundry, living room and dining room, and that the flatmates were expected to clean up after using common facilities, that the parties signed Flat/House Sharing Agreements listing [The landlord/s] as the head tenant and [The tenant/s] as a tenant, that the Flat/House Sharing Agreement provided that any disputes were to be determined by the Disputes Tribunal, 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, and how to deal with the bond that has been lodged with the Tenancy Services Bond Centre in error. Suppression
The respondent requested name suppression. The applicant said he did not mind about whether he was granted name suppression or not.
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 5407752 — Boarding House

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407752 — 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