What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5486891 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 5486891?

Nd Identifying Details. 2. The Tenan…: $320.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5486891?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5486891?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13705349-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5486891 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 5486891?

Nd Identifying Details. 2. The Tenan…: $320.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5486891?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5486891?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13705349-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

66 Hollyford Avenue, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8053 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5486891 — Boarding House

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5486891. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
nd identifying details. 2. The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the matter. 3. BY CONSENT - Jing Lang will pa	$320.00		nd identifying details. 2. The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the matter. 3. BY CONSENT - Jing Lang will pa

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5486891. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
nd identifying details. 2. The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the matter. 3. BY CONSENT - Jing Lang will pa	$320.00		nd identifying details. 2. The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the matter. 3. BY CONSENT - Jing Lang will pa

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the matter.
BY CONSENT - Jing Lang will pay the tenant $320 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of her bond. She paid $320 as bond when she rented a room in Ms Lang’s house. Ms Lang does not agree the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction.
Once I established that I had jurisdiction Ms Lang agreed to pay the bond money to the tenant and this was done by bank transfer during the hearing. If for some reason that payment is not completed then the tenant can enforce this order.
The first issue I have to decide is whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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. Residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence. Tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent.
In this case the tenant lived in a residential dwelling and paid rent. She had the exclusive use of a bedroom and the shared use of the lounge, kitchen, bathrooms, shower room and laundry. That sounds like a tenancy.
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
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.
The exclusion in 5(1)(n) RTA was considered by the District Court in Musson v Dobrisek & Ors DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006-032-36. The Judge in that decision considered tenancy premises where the owner lived in one bedroom and the other eight bedrooms were rented out to other people. Everyone shared the use of the kitchen, lounge, bathroom etc – the common areas. The focus in Musson was on the principal residence point. The issue was not whether this was the landlord’s main residence, but whether this house was being used mainly as a home or a business. The Court held that the exclusion at section 5(1)(n) of the RTA did not apply because the premises were not used principally as the landlord’s residence.
The Court in Musson found the relevant question in cases like this is whether the principal use of these premises is as a place of residence by the landlord? The Judge said – [39] ... So the question to be asked is - Is the principal use of these premises as a place of residence by the landlord? [ 40] Put in this way, the clear answer, on the cases of both sides, is "no". Mr Musson occupied one bedroom out of nine, and shared the common area equally with the other occupants. Far from Mr Musson's use of the property being "principal", it was commensurate with that of the other occupants. [ 41] I consider that this interpretation reflects what I perceive to be the policy objectives of the Act. Relevantly, it is intended to govern landlord/tenant relationships which are primarily commercial. Section 5(n) appears to me intended to cover the situation of the owner or tenant of a house letting out a bedroom or bedsitting room to a tenant or sub-tenant while the principal use of the house remains as accommodation for the landlord and the landlord's family. On this reading, the exception could apply only to small scale and limited letting, because the principal use of the property would have to be as a residence for the landlord and the landlord could have only one or perhaps two properties which could be so described.
Applying the Musson decision to this living arrangement, Ms Lang and her son shared one bedroom, the tenant had one bedroom, and there were two other people also staying in the house and paying rent. Everyone living there shared the use of the common areas. It seems most likely to me the house was not being used principally as a residence for Ms Lang. This means the exclusion at 5(1)(n) RTA does not apply to this living arrangement.
I find the RTA applies and there was a residential tenancy. Ms Lang has been advised to talk to Tenancy Services about how to rent out the rooms in her house and comply with the RTA.
The tenant has made an application for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
The tenant’s name is suppressed because she is the most successful party. Ms Lang’s name and the address of the tenancy premises will be published because there is public interest when landlords do not comply with the RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5486891 — Boarding House at 66 Hollyford Avenue, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5486891 — Boarding House at 66 Hollyford Avenue, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8053

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