What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426847 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both the applicant and the respondent’s

How much money was awarded in case 5426847?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426847?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426847?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13660728-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426847 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both the applicant and the respondent’s

How much money was awarded in case 5426847?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426847?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426847?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13660728-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5426847 — Leaks

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of both the applicant and the respondent’s names and identifying details.
The applicants’ claims are dismissed as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
This tenancy relates to a rural property on the outskirts of Auckland. The property has a main house with pool, stables with two flats above (one open to the stables and the other self-contained) and a number of paddocks.
The tenants entered into a lease arrangement with the respondent on 4 October 2019. The relevant provisions from that lease agreement are set out below: a. The applicants agreed to lease “all the land and stables” at the property “but specifically excluding the main house, office, all the gardens and driveway around the main house, also excluding the two bedroom flat at the southern end of the stables and associated carparking and access to the flat”. b. Monthly rental was $4,550 plus OPEX and inclusive of GST, payable monthly. c. The use of the land and buildings was recorded as solely for the running of a riding school and grazing of horses. d. The applicants were responsible for maintaining all fencing, gates and upkeep of stables, stalls and other buildings used for horse riding. e. If water is needed to be supplied to the property to fill the water tanks it was to be negotiated between the parties based on respective water usage. f. The lawns beside the front paddock, water tanks and driveway were to be maintained by the respondent.
The lease was initially for a period of two years but was renewed and finally expired on 25 January 2026.
The applicants have applied to the Tribunal for orders as follows: a. Compensation for failure to maintain/breach of Healthy Homes Standards due to there being no heat source, a leak that was not rectified and an extractor fan was not working for some time. b. Compensation for the costs of lawn maintenance calculated at $50.00 per month over a three year period. c. Compensation for the respondent diverting the water supply to fill his pool, preventing water supply to the apartments and the stock Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the applicants’ claims?
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 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. The terms ’residential premises’, ‘tenancy’, and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined as: residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises; and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement
Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Section 10 RTA provides that, where a party to proceedings contends that the Act does not apply, they must establish the facts supporting their contention. In other words, they have the burden of proving the Act does not apply.
Section 5(1)(a) RTA provides that the Act does not apply where the premises are commercial premises. Section 2(1) RTA defines commercial premises as premises that are not residential. Section 2(3) RTA provides that, where leased premises are used for both residential and commercial purposes, they are deemed to be residential unless it is proved that they were let “principally for purposes other than residential purposes”.
When determining whether the Act is excluded, the Tribunal considers the substance of the agreement between the parties rather than the labels they have applied.
In determining whether the premises are primarily residential or commercial, relevant factors include: the nature of the premises; any advertising and pre- contractual statements about the intended use of the premises; the terms of the agreement; and whether any chattels provided are more likely for commercial or residential use.
The respondent said that this was a commercial lease entered into for the applicants to operate their riding school, which was a significant and well-known operation with students attending daily and using the stables.
He referred the Tribunal to the aerial photos which show that the paddocks take up a very significant portion of the total property.
The respondent said that the applicants were responsible for all maintenance under the terms of the lease (except lawnmowing as specifically provided). He said that he had assumed that the applicants had granted themselves a residential tenancy of the flat above the stables (possibly for tax purposes) but that as lessor that was not his concern.
The applicants said that before the respondent became the landlord, they had entered into a commercial lease for the paddocks and a residential tenancy for the separate flat, and that during the arrangement they moved to the flat that is open to the stables. They said that they had assumed that the arrangement had stayed the same, and had not realised that they had only signed a lease and not a residential tenancy agreement. Discussion
The question for the Tribunal to determine is whether the premises were let “principally for purposes other than residential purposes”.
After reviewing the lease document and hearing from the parties I consider that the premises were let principally so that the applicants could operate their riding school. If make this finding because: a. The lease specifically provided that the land and building use was for the purpose of running and riding school and grazing horses; b. The paddocks covered a significant area and were set up for riding lessons; c. The stables were also used for the riding school and access was open to students; and d. The flat above was small and essentially part of the stables and opened out to the stables.
I do not consider that the principal purpose was residential. The principal purpose was commercial.
This tenancy is therefore an excluded tenancy and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the applicants’ claims.
The applicants were however correct to file their claim in the Tenancy Tribunal as it is this Tribunal that determines jurisdiction.
The Disputes Tribunal is likely to have jurisdiction to hear the applicants’ claims. The applicants may however wish to discuss with the respondent to see if it is possible to resolve matters amicably without a further application.
As I have found that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction I have exercised my discretion to suppress both parties’ names and identifying details. I do not consider that there is any public interest in publication of the parties’ names.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.

This tenancy relates to a rural property on the outskirts of Auckland. The property has a main house with pool, stables with two flats above (one open to the stables and the other self-contained) and a number of paddocks.

The tenants entered into a lease arrangement with the respondent on 4 October 2019. The relevant provisions from that lease agreement are set out below: a. The applicants agreed to lease “all the land and stables” at the property “but specifically excluding the main house, office, all the gardens and driveway around the main house, also excluding the two bedroom flat at the southern end of the stables and associated carparking and access to the flat”. b. Monthly rental was $4,550 plus OPEX and inclusive of GST, payable monthly. c. The use of the land and buildings was recorded as solely for the running of a riding school and grazing of horses. d. The applicants were responsible for maintaining all fencing, gates and upkeep of stables, stalls and other buildings used for horse riding. e. If water is needed to be supplied to the property to fill the water tanks it was to be negotiated between the parties based on respective water usage. f. The lawns beside the front paddock, water tanks and driveway were to be maintained by the respondent.

The lease was initially for a period of two years but was renewed and finally expired on 25 January 2026.

The applicants have applied to the Tribunal for orders as follows: a. Compensation for failure to maintain/breach of Healthy Homes Standards due to there being no heat source, a leak that was not rectified and an extractor fan was not working for some time. b. Compensation for the costs of lawn maintenance calculated at $50.00 per month over a three year period. c. Compensation for the respondent diverting the water supply to fill his pool, preventing water supply to the apartments and the stock Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the applicants’ claims?

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 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. The terms ’residential premises’, ‘tenancy’, and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined as: residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises; and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement

Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Section 10 RTA provides that, where a party to proceedings contends that the Act does not apply, they must establish the facts supporting their contention. In other words, they have the burden of proving the Act does not apply.

Section 5(1)(a) RTA provides that the Act does not apply where the premises are commercial premises. Section 2(1) RTA defines commercial premises as premises that are not residential. Section 2(3) RTA provides that, where leased premises are used for both residential and commercial purposes, they are deemed to be residential unless it is proved that they were let “principally for purposes other than residential purposes”.

When determining whether the Act is excluded, the Tribunal considers the substance of the agreement between the parties rather than the labels they have applied.

In determining whether the premises are primarily residential or commercial, relevant factors include: the nature of the premises; any advertising and pre- contractual statements about the intended use of the premises; the terms of the agreement; and whether any chattels provided are more likely for commercial or residential use.

The respondent said that this was a commercial lease entered into for the applicants to operate their riding school, which was a significant and well-known operation with students attending daily and using the stables.

He referred the Tribunal to the aerial photos which show that the paddocks take up a very significant portion of the total property.

The respondent said that the applicants were responsible for all maintenance under the terms of the lease (except lawnmowing as specifically provided). He said that he had assumed that the applicants had granted themselves a residential tenancy of the flat above the stables (possibly for tax purposes) but that as lessor that was not his concern.

The applicants said that before the respondent became the landlord, they had entered into a commercial lease for the paddocks and a residential tenancy for the separate flat, and that during the arrangement they moved to the flat that is open to the stables. They said that they had assumed that the arrangement had stayed the same, and had not realised that they had only signed a lease and not a residential tenancy agreement. Discussion

The question for the Tribunal to determine is whether the premises were let “principally for purposes other than residential purposes”.

After reviewing the lease document and hearing from the parties I consider that the premises were let principally so that the applicants could operate their riding school. If make this finding because: a. The lease specifically provided that the land and building use was for the purpose of running and riding school and grazing horses; b. The paddocks covered a significant area and were set up for riding lessons; c. The stables were also used for the riding school and access was open to students; and d. The flat above was small and essentially part of the stables and opened out to the stables.

I do not consider that the principal purpose was residential. The principal purpose was commercial.

This tenancy is therefore an excluded tenancy and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the applicants’ claims.

The applicants were however correct to file their claim in the Tenancy Tribunal as it is this Tribunal that determines jurisdiction.

The Disputes Tribunal is likely to have jurisdiction to hear the applicants’ claims. The applicants may however wish to discuss with the respondent to see if it is possible to resolve matters amicably without a further application.

As I have found that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction I have exercised my discretion to suppress both parties’ names and identifying details. I do not consider that there is any public interest in publication of the parties’ names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426847 — Leaks

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426847 — Leaks

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions