What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5409278 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5409278?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5409278?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5409278?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13313782-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5409278 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5409278?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5409278?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5409278?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13313782-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6A Peel Close, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5409278 — Rent arrears

Order

The tenant application is dismissed.
These matters are determined as indicated by the order above, but the parties are granted a period of 4 weeks after which, if the tenant’s goods remain at the property, they can request that the application be brought back to the Tribunal and the matter will be re-opened.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applications relate to premises which were occupied by Baylee. Her parents own the property. Jurisdiction
There is a preliminary issue whether the Tribunal can hear the applications. There is a preliminary issue whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides that the Act does 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
Baylee is a member of the owner’s family. She is their daughter. The premises were her principal place of residence. On its face, the exclusion in s5(1)(n) applies. However, in Voss v Voss [2022] NZDC 677 the daughter of the ‘landlord’, was the sole occupant/tenant of premises. The District Court held that the exclusion under s5(1)(n) would apply only when there is current occupation of a landlord and tenant who are family.
However, in Rio v Haturini [2021] NZHC 3217 the High Court considered occupation by one member of a family-owned property and concluded: “There is uncertainty as to the exact legal characterisation of Edna’s former occupation right. There is no tenancy agreement and, by virtue of s 5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and associated definition of “member of the landlord’s or owner’s family”, that Act does not apply. A better characterisation may be a form of occupation licence which came to an end on 2 October 2020 following one month’s notice. Subsequent service of a trespass notice confirmed that position.”
In Voss there was a written tenancy agreement. The District Court distinguished the earlier High Court decision in Rio on the basis that, in Rio there was no written agreement but more of an informal arrangement where the family member occupying the premises agreed to pay a weekly sum to live in the house and then refused to pay when asked to leave.
In this case Mr & Mrs Duke purchased this property (and a previous one) to support their daughter and provide her and her children with a place to live. There was no written agreement, and it was clear to me that neither party considered themselves “landlord” or “tenant” until Baylee stopped making a weekly payment to her parents. The weekly amount was below market rent and was more akin to the “occupation rent” referred to in Rio.
I was inclined to the view that the Rio decision was more applicable to this situation and that these living arrangements were excluded from the RTA. However, both parties had made applications to the Tribunal, and both wanted me to determine the issues. Baylee maintained that I did have jurisdiction and that she had received advice to that effect. Her parents were less certain.
Section 8 RTA provides that, where the Act is excluded by sections 5 to 7, if the premises are used for residential purposes, the parties can contract back into some or all of the provisions of the Act. Section 8 RTA does not contain any time limit on when the parties may contract back into the Act. The parties may agree at a later stage to take advantage of its provisions, even after the tenancy has ended (see Gaia v Culling and Signal [1999] NZTT, Palmerston North, TT 121/99). At the hearing, the parties have agreed that I will determine their claims under the RTA. Baylee’s Claims
The tenancy was terminated by Order of the Tribunal on 5 December 2025. Mr & Mrs Duke were granted immediate possession of the premises.
On termination of a tenancy, the tenant must leave the premises and remove all of their goods from the property. See s40(1)(e)(i) & (ii) RTA.
Baylee claims $3,000 in compensation and exemplary damages. She says that Mr & Mrs Duke did not let her return to the property to collect her goods and improperly disposed of items of value.
A landlord must not seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods, except where they are disposed of under sections 62 to 62C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. See section 33(1) and (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 33(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Sections 62 to 62C set out the steps a landlord must follow when goods are left at the premises after the end of the tenancy. Mr and Mrs Duke followed that process. Baylee seems to think that she had an unfettered right to return to the property as and when she chose to collect items. She did not. Also see s62E which provides that the tenant’s responsibility to remove their belongings on termination of the tenancy is not affected by s62A to s62D RTA.
Mr & Mrs Duke secured Baylee’s goods. They packed most items up, moved them to the secure garage and sought to engage with Baylee about collection. They acted appropriately. Ultimately Baylee did collect her goods and moved them with Mr & Mrs Duke’s assistance.
Baylee now claims that her parents disposed of valuable items and wants compensation. She said that she cannot find a lot of her clothes and a TV. Her items remain in storage, and it wasn’t clear that she has even checked what is there. Her claim was based on the fact that Mr & Mrs Duke removed a skip full of rubbish from the premises. Having seen the photographs of the property when the Tribunal granted possession, I am satisfied that there was a skip worth of rubbish to dispose of.
Baylee’s claim is dismissed. Mrs & Mrs Duke’s claims
I heard Baylee’s claim and her parents reply first. I then intended to hear Mr & Mrs Duke’s claims for rent arrears, replacement carpet and other compensation. However, Mrs Duke said that while the claims were valid, they were only made in response to Baylee’s application.
I indicated that, having heard from Baylee and her parents in relation to Baylee’s application, that claim would be dismissed. In those circumstances, Mrs Duke did not wish for me to hear her application.
Mr and Mrs Duke’s application will be closed, unless matters need to be re- opened as set out in Order 2 above.
I have not awarded reimbursement of either Tribunal application fee.

Order

The tenant application is dismissed.
These matters are determined as indicated by the order above, but the parties are granted a period of 4 weeks after which, if the tenant’s goods remain at the property, they can request that the application be brought back to the Tribunal and the matter will be re-opened.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applications relate to premises which were occupied by Baylee. Her parents own the property. Jurisdiction
There is a preliminary issue whether the Tribunal can hear the applications. There is a preliminary issue whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides that the Act does 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
Baylee is a member of the owner’s family. She is their daughter. The premises were her principal place of residence. On its face, the exclusion in s5(1)(n) applies. However, in Voss v Voss [2022] NZDC 677 the daughter of the ‘landlord’, was the sole occupant/tenant of premises. The District Court held that the exclusion under s5(1)(n) would apply only when there is current occupation of a landlord and tenant who are family.
However, in Rio v Haturini [2021] NZHC 3217 the High Court considered occupation by one member of a family-owned property and concluded: “There is uncertainty as to the exact legal characterisation of Edna’s former occupation right. There is no tenancy agreement and, by virtue of s 5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and associated definition of “member of the landlord’s or owner’s family”, that Act does not apply. A better characterisation may be a form of occupation licence which came to an end on 2 October 2020 following one month’s notice. Subsequent service of a trespass notice confirmed that position.”
In Voss there was a written tenancy agreement. The District Court distinguished the earlier High Court decision in Rio on the basis that, in Rio there was no written agreement but more of an informal arrangement where the family member occupying the premises agreed to pay a weekly sum to live in the house and then refused to pay when asked to leave.
In this case Mr & Mrs Duke purchased this property (and a previous one) to support their daughter and provide her and her children with a place to live. There was no written agreement, and it was clear to me that neither party considered themselves “landlord” or “tenant” until Baylee stopped making a weekly payment to her parents. The weekly amount was below market rent and was more akin to the “occupation rent” referred to in Rio.
I was inclined to the view that the Rio decision was more applicable to this situation and that these living arrangements were excluded from the RTA. However, both parties had made applications to the Tribunal, and both wanted me to determine the issues. Baylee maintained that I did have jurisdiction and that she had received advice to that effect. Her parents were less certain.
Section 8 RTA provides that, where the Act is excluded by sections 5 to 7, if the premises are used for residential purposes, the parties can contract back into some or all of the provisions of the Act. Section 8 RTA does not contain any time limit on when the parties may contract back into the Act. The parties may agree at a later stage to take advantage of its provisions, even after the tenancy has ended (see Gaia v Culling and Signal [1999] NZTT, Palmerston North, TT 121/99). At the hearing, the parties have agreed that I will determine their claims under the RTA. Baylee’s Claims
The tenancy was terminated by Order of the Tribunal on 5 December 2025. Mr & Mrs Duke were granted immediate possession of the premises.
On termination of a tenancy, the tenant must leave the premises and remove all of their goods from the property. See s40(1)(e)(i) & (ii) RTA.
Baylee claims $3,000 in compensation and exemplary damages. She says that Mr & Mrs Duke did not let her return to the property to collect her goods and improperly disposed of items of value.
A landlord must not seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods, except where they are disposed of under sections 62 to 62C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. See section 33(1) and (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 33(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Sections 62 to 62C set out the steps a landlord must follow when goods are left at the premises after the end of the tenancy. Mr and Mrs Duke followed that process. Baylee seems to think that she had an unfettered right to return to the property as and when she chose to collect items. She did not. Also see s62E which provides that the tenant’s responsibility to remove their belongings on termination of the tenancy is not affected by s62A to s62D RTA.
Mr & Mrs Duke secured Baylee’s goods. They packed most items up, moved them to the secure garage and sought to engage with Baylee about collection. They acted appropriately. Ultimately Baylee did collect her goods and moved them with Mr & Mrs Duke’s assistance.
Baylee now claims that her parents disposed of valuable items and wants compensation. She said that she cannot find a lot of her clothes and a TV. Her items remain in storage, and it wasn’t clear that she has even checked what is there. Her claim was based on the fact that Mr & Mrs Duke removed a skip full of rubbish from the premises. Having seen the photographs of the property when the Tribunal granted possession, I am satisfied that there was a skip worth of rubbish to dispose of.
Baylee’s claim is dismissed. Mrs & Mrs Duke’s claims
I heard Baylee’s claim and her parents reply first. I then intended to hear Mr & Mrs Duke’s claims for rent arrears, replacement carpet and other compensation. However, Mrs Duke said that while the claims were valid, they were only made in response to Baylee’s application.
I indicated that, having heard from Baylee and her parents in relation to Baylee’s application, that claim would be dismissed. In those circumstances, Mrs Duke did not wish for me to hear her application.
Mr and Mrs Duke’s application will be closed, unless matters need to be re- opened as set out in Order 2 above.
I have not awarded reimbursement of either Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5409278 — Rent arrears at 6A Peel Close, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5409278 — Rent arrears at 6A Peel Close, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614

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