What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5429000 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and

How much money was awarded in case 5429000?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5429000?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5429000?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13751482-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5429000 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and

How much money was awarded in case 5429000?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5429000?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5429000?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13751482-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

44B Belt Road, Moturoa, New Plymouth 4310 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5429000 — Boarding House

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details.
The tenant was living at the premises as a boarder, so the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not apply.
The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both [The applicant/s] (J) and [The respondent/s] (N) attended the hearing held remotely.
J has applied for the refund of a bond of $560.00 that she says she and her husband paid to N and his wife while she lived at the tenancy address.
N disagrees with this. He says:- a. J and her husband were boarders living at his house with him and his family. b. The money paid by J was not a bond but was paid for bedroom furniture that N bought for J and her husband to use. c. That neither he nor his wife (B) signed the boarding house tenancy agreement that has been provided in evidence. They say that the signature on the agreement is a forgery.

Does the tenancy law apply to flatmates and boarders?

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) is the law that applies to residential tenancies between landlords and tenants.
This law applies when one person pays rent and is allowed to live in the premises. 1 The premises can be a house, a unit, or a room and it can be shared with other people.
However, there are some exceptions when the tenancy law in the RTA does not apply. These are listed in section 5 RTA.
One of those exceptions is where the person paying rent is living in the same premises as the landlord or the owner (or their family), sharing the same communal areas and amenities, and the main use of the premises is as the landlord’s residence; see section 5(1)(n) RTA.
The person paying the rent is a boarder or a flatmate of the landlord/owner. They are not a “tenant”.
The reason the tenancy law does not apply to this situation is because the main purpose of the house is for the landlord, owner or their family to live in. 2 It is a family home.

Was this a flatmate/boarder situation?

I asked both J and N about the living arrangements at the house.
They both said that:- a. J and her husband paid rent to N. b. J and her husband slept in one bedroom in the house and, later on, J also had use of another bedroom. c. N, his wife, their two children and N’s mother also lived in the house at the same time. d. The house has six bedrooms (four upstairs and two downstairs). J and her husband moved into one of the upstairs bedrooms. 1 Section 2 RTA defines “tenancy” as “the right to occupy premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent”. 2 See Who tenancy law does not protect » Tenancy Services e. The house was not divided into separate areas for J and her husband and a separate area for N and his family. f. Everyone in the house had access to the bathrooms, to the main kitchen, and to another kitchen area in the garage and a laundry.
My decision is that J and her husband were flatmates or boarders of N. J and N and N’s family all shared the same house.
The exclusion in section 5(1)(n) RTA applies because the main purpose of the house was for N and his family to live in.

Does the written tenancy agreement mean that the RTA applies?

Sometimes, the landlord/owner and the flatmate or boarder sign an agreement which says they agree that the tenancy law in the RTA does apply to them. If they do this, it is called “contracting in”; see section 8 RTA.
There was a written tenancy agreement in this case, and it caused some confusion and more conflict. I discuss that now.
J gave the Tribunal a copy of a ‘Boarding House Tenancy Agreement’ on the standard form used by Tenancy Services. This names N as landlord and J as tenant. It says that J is a joint tenant with J’s husband. J and her husband have signed the agreement and there is another signature for the landlord.
N and his wife (B) say that the landlord signature does not belong to either of them. J says it is B’s signature.
My decisions about the boarding house tenancy agreement are:- a. That this is not a boarding house because the house was not lived in by at least six tenants at any one time. The only people separately paying rent were J and her husband. Everyone else was family. b. It is probable that B did sign the tenancy agreement. I believe J when she said that she asked J for a written agreement because she needed one for a victim support process she was going through. She said J gave her a blank form and she filled it in. When she gave it to B, B signed it. J pointed out that if she was going to forge someone’s signature (which is what B says), she would have forged N’s signature because it was his name on the agreement. c. J explained that the written agreement was filled in and signed much later after she moved into the house, and she had changed the dates beside the signatures to match the start date. This is why the dates look as if they have been altered. J said she sent the signed agreement to victim support but doesn’t think she even sent a copy of it to N and B.
My decision is that even though B probably did sign the written agreement, N and B did not intend the tenancy law to apply. They told me they’d had other people stay at the house before this and it was usually arranged by a friend of theirs who helped people coming to New Zealand to study English. They had never done a written agreement with any of those people.
The boarding house tenancy agreement does not mean that N and B are “landlords” under the tenancy law. The parties have not contracted in to the RTA. Conclusion
My decisions above mean that the Residential Tenancies Act does not apply to this situation.
This means I cannot decide about the $560.00 that J says she paid to N as a bond.
I must dismiss the application.

What happens now?

We did talk about the $560.00 in the hearing. I encouraged everyone to try to resolve their disagreement about this fairly between themselves.
I told N, B and J that if there is still a dispute between them about the $560.00 that any of them can apply to the Disputes Tribunal. That is a different court. See this link to make an application. Apply online | Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand
I also said that I would refer the landlords to a simple agreement they can use to record details for any future boarders. They can change any of the clauses. See the “Flat/house sharing agreement” template at the bottom of the page at this link. Flatting » Tenancy Services
I suppress the names of all parties but not the tenancy address.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details.
The tenant was living at the premises as a boarder, so the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not apply.
The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both [The applicant/s] (J) and [The respondent/s] (N) attended the hearing held remotely.
J has applied for the refund of a bond of $560.00 that she says she and her husband paid to N and his wife while she lived at the tenancy address.
N disagrees with this. He says:- a. J and her husband were boarders living at his house with him and his family. b. The money paid by J was not a bond but was paid for bedroom furniture that N bought for J and her husband to use. c. That neither he nor his wife (B) signed the boarding house tenancy agreement that has been provided in evidence. They say that the signature on the agreement is a forgery.

Does the tenancy law apply to flatmates and boarders?

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) is the law that applies to residential tenancies between landlords and tenants.
This law applies when one person pays rent and is allowed to live in the premises. 1 The premises can be a house, a unit, or a room and it can be shared with other people.
However, there are some exceptions when the tenancy law in the RTA does not apply. These are listed in section 5 RTA.
One of those exceptions is where the person paying rent is living in the same premises as the landlord or the owner (or their family), sharing the same communal areas and amenities, and the main use of the premises is as the landlord’s residence; see section 5(1)(n) RTA.
The person paying the rent is a boarder or a flatmate of the landlord/owner. They are not a “tenant”.
The reason the tenancy law does not apply to this situation is because the main purpose of the house is for the landlord, owner or their family to live in. 2 It is a family home.

Was this a flatmate/boarder situation?

I asked both J and N about the living arrangements at the house.
They both said that:- a. J and her husband paid rent to N. b. J and her husband slept in one bedroom in the house and, later on, J also had use of another bedroom. c. N, his wife, their two children and N’s mother also lived in the house at the same time. d. The house has six bedrooms (four upstairs and two downstairs). J and her husband moved into one of the upstairs bedrooms. 1 Section 2 RTA defines “tenancy” as “the right to occupy premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent”. 2 See Who tenancy law does not protect » Tenancy Services e. The house was not divided into separate areas for J and her husband and a separate area for N and his family. f. Everyone in the house had access to the bathrooms, to the main kitchen, and to another kitchen area in the garage and a laundry.
My decision is that J and her husband were flatmates or boarders of N. J and N and N’s family all shared the same house.
The exclusion in section 5(1)(n) RTA applies because the main purpose of the house was for N and his family to live in.

Does the written tenancy agreement mean that the RTA applies?

Sometimes, the landlord/owner and the flatmate or boarder sign an agreement which says they agree that the tenancy law in the RTA does apply to them. If they do this, it is called “contracting in”; see section 8 RTA.
There was a written tenancy agreement in this case, and it caused some confusion and more conflict. I discuss that now.
J gave the Tribunal a copy of a ‘Boarding House Tenancy Agreement’ on the standard form used by Tenancy Services. This names N as landlord and J as tenant. It says that J is a joint tenant with J’s husband. J and her husband have signed the agreement and there is another signature for the landlord.
N and his wife (B) say that the landlord signature does not belong to either of them. J says it is B’s signature.
My decisions about the boarding house tenancy agreement are:- a. That this is not a boarding house because the house was not lived in by at least six tenants at any one time. The only people separately paying rent were J and her husband. Everyone else was family. b. It is probable that B did sign the tenancy agreement. I believe J when she said that she asked J for a written agreement because she needed one for a victim support process she was going through. She said J gave her a blank form and she filled it in. When she gave it to B, B signed it. J pointed out that if she was going to forge someone’s signature (which is what B says), she would have forged N’s signature because it was his name on the agreement. c. J explained that the written agreement was filled in and signed much later after she moved into the house, and she had changed the dates beside the signatures to match the start date. This is why the dates look as if they have been altered. J said she sent the signed agreement to victim support but doesn’t think she even sent a copy of it to N and B.
My decision is that even though B probably did sign the written agreement, N and B did not intend the tenancy law to apply. They told me they’d had other people stay at the house before this and it was usually arranged by a friend of theirs who helped people coming to New Zealand to study English. They had never done a written agreement with any of those people.
The boarding house tenancy agreement does not mean that N and B are “landlords” under the tenancy law. The parties have not contracted in to the RTA. Conclusion
My decisions above mean that the Residential Tenancies Act does not apply to this situation.
This means I cannot decide about the $560.00 that J says she paid to N as a bond.
I must dismiss the application.

What happens now?

We did talk about the $560.00 in the hearing. I encouraged everyone to try to resolve their disagreement about this fairly between themselves.
I told N, B and J that if there is still a dispute between them about the $560.00 that any of them can apply to the Disputes Tribunal. That is a different court. See this link to make an application. Apply online | Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand
I also said that I would refer the landlords to a simple agreement they can use to record details for any future boarders. They can change any of the clauses. See the “Flat/house sharing agreement” template at the bottom of the page at this link. Flatting » Tenancy Services
I suppress the names of all parties but not the tenancy address.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5429000 — Boarding House at 44B Belt Road, Moturoa, New Plymouth 4310

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5429000 — Boarding House at 44B Belt Road, Moturoa, New Plymouth 4310

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the tenancy law apply to flatmates and boarders?

Was this a flatmate/boarder situation?

Does the written tenancy agreement mean that the RTA applies?

What happens now?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the tenancy law apply to flatmates and boarders?

Was this a flatmate/boarder situation?

Does the written tenancy agreement mean that the RTA applies?

What happens now?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions