How much money was awarded in case 4559623?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4559623?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4559623?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9405353-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4559623?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4559623?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4559623?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9405353-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

350 Main South Road, Paroa, Greymouth 7805, Charles Tenancy Tribunal Case 4559623 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4559623?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply to publication of this decision.

The tenant’s occupation of the premises was a service occupancy, not a service tenancy, and therefore the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine these applications.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone and both parties attended. Mr Parkinson represented Parkinson Developments Limited.

Ms Palmer occupied the manager’s house at the Charles Court Motel in Greymouth. During that time, her son damaged the kitchen bench top by putting a hot pan on it. Ms Palmer accepts that it was careless damage.

If Ms Palmer was a tenant of the premises at the time, she will be liable for the damage because it was caused carelessly by someone occupying the premises with her permission.

As I pointed out in my previous order made on 10 July 2023, there is an issue whether Ms Palmer was a tenant at the time. The possibilities are that she occupied the premises under a service tenancy or as a service occupier.

The difference, briefly, is that with a service tenancy the occupation of the premises is incidental to the occupier’s employment. Where the occupation is necessary for the better performance of services and the occupier is required to live in the premises to perform those services, it is a service occupancy. In that case the occupation is by licence from the employer and the law treats the employer as having possession of the premises.

A good example is the situation in Whitley v Stewart Street Properties Limited HC Auckland CIV-2011-404-6621 25 November 2011 Brewer J. That case concerned a restaurant and motel complex. The Court found that one of the parties was a service occupier because her occupation of the accommodation was a necessary condition of her employment as manager of the complex. It was subsidiary to her employment arrangement. Therefore, she did not have the protection of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

That was also Ms Palmer’s situation. She was allowed to occupy the manager’s house for the motel. She was the onsite manager, and she was required to be on site to deal with any issues that arose during the day or at night. This was especially important because some of the motel units were occupied as emergency accommodation. When her employment ended, so did her right to occupy the house.

She was paid weekly, and her pay took account of the benefit of the house which included power and telephone. That does not affect the fact that it was a service occupancy.

In my view this was a classic case of a service occupancy, not a service tenancy. It was not incidental to her employment; it was fundamental to it.

It follows that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine these applications.

If I had found that the Tribunal has jurisdiction, I would have found that Ms Palmer’s liability to the lesser of the landlord’s insurance excess or four weeks rent (s49B of the Act). Based on Mr Parkinson’s evidence, the most that could have been awarded would be $2,000, being the equivalent of four weeks rent or the value put on the use of the manager’s house.

The parties discussed the situation between them, and I am happy to say that they agreed in principle that Ms Palmer would pay $2,000 compensation. All that had to be agreed was a payment arrangement.

I hope that the parties can resolve this without further recourse to the justice system and I wish them well.

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply to publication of this decision.
The tenant’s occupation of the premises was a service occupancy, not a service tenancy, and therefore the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine these applications.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone and both parties attended. Mr Parkinson represented Parkinson Developments Limited.
Ms Palmer occupied the manager’s house at the Charles Court Motel in Greymouth. During that time, her son damaged the kitchen bench top by putting a hot pan on it. Ms Palmer accepts that it was careless damage.
If Ms Palmer was a tenant of the premises at the time, she will be liable for the damage because it was caused carelessly by someone occupying the premises with her permission.
As I pointed out in my previous order made on 10 July 2023, there is an issue whether Ms Palmer was a tenant at the time. The possibilities are that she occupied the premises under a service tenancy or as a service occupier.
The difference, briefly, is that with a service tenancy the occupation of the premises is incidental to the occupier’s employment. Where the occupation is necessary for the better performance of services and the occupier is required to live in the premises to perform those services, it is a service occupancy. In that case the occupation is by licence from the employer and the law treats the employer as having possession of the premises.
A good example is the situation in Whitley v Stewart Street Properties Limited HC Auckland CIV-2011-404-6621 25 November 2011 Brewer J. That case concerned a restaurant and motel complex. The Court found that one of the parties was a service occupier because her occupation of the accommodation was a necessary condition of her employment as manager of the complex. It was subsidiary to her employment arrangement. Therefore, she did not have the protection of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
That was also Ms Palmer’s situation. She was allowed to occupy the manager’s house for the motel. She was the onsite manager, and she was required to be on site to deal with any issues that arose during the day or at night. This was especially important because some of the motel units were occupied as emergency accommodation. When her employment ended, so did her right to occupy the house.
She was paid weekly, and her pay took account of the benefit of the house which included power and telephone. That does not affect the fact that it was a service occupancy.
In my view this was a classic case of a service occupancy, not a service tenancy. It was not incidental to her employment; it was fundamental to it.
It follows that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine these applications.
If I had found that the Tribunal has jurisdiction, I would have found that Ms Palmer’s liability to the lesser of the landlord’s insurance excess or four weeks rent (s49B of the Act). Based on Mr Parkinson’s evidence, the most that could have been awarded would be $2,000, being the equivalent of four weeks rent or the value put on the use of the manager’s house.
The parties discussed the situation between them, and I am happy to say that they agreed in principle that Ms Palmer would pay $2,000 compensation. All that had to be agreed was a payment arrangement.
I hope that the parties can resolve this without further recourse to the justice system and I wish them well.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4559623 — Property damage at 350 Main South Road, Paroa, Greymouth 7805, Charles

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4559623 — Property damage at 350 Main South Road, Paroa, Greymouth 7805, Charles

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions