What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4599569?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4599569?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4599569?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4599569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9369068-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4599569?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4599569?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4599569?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4599569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9369068-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat site 37, 10 Coronation Street, Paeroa, Paeroa Tenancy Tribunal Case 4599569 — Healthy homes

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The name of the respondent was corrected and amended.
Paeroa RV Centre Limited must pay Julie Clare Allan $20.44 immediately, for reimbursement of the filing fee.
It is declared that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim.

Reasons

Mrs Allan attended the hearing as did Mrs Petley and Mr Hale for Paeroa RV Centre Limited in their capacities as chairperson and director of the Board respectively.
Mrs Allan confirmed the claim was against Paeroa RV Centre Limited. Both parties agreed to the correction of the name of the respondent.
Mrs Allan seeks a declaration to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider her claim against Paeroa RV Centre. Background
Mrs Allan and her husband lived in a cabin at Paeroa RV Centre for around 5 years. They owned the cabin and had it relocated to the site they occupied at the RV Centre.
The Paeroa RV Centre has about 52 sites. Some sites are occupied by permanent residents and other sites are occupied on a casual basis. Some occupants are shareholders of Paeroa RV Centre, however an occupant does not have to be a shareholder to be allocated a site. Once an occupant is approved they are allocated a site and, under an agreement with Paeroa RV Centre, 1 have exclusive use of the site until and unless they ask to change sites or leave the Paeroa RV Centre permanently.
Occupants can put a caravan, motor home, transportable home and/or shed or deck on the site they occupy as long as it is contained within the site and is transportable. The occupants pay rent for the land; shareholders pay a reduced rent.
Mr and Mrs Allan left the Paeroa RV in early October 2022 and arranged for their cabin to be sold to other occupants. Mrs Allan’s claim concerns a dispute with Paeora RV Centre for costs incurred in the removal of their relocatable cabin/buildings from the site they had occupied. Mrs Allan had filed her claim in the Disputes Tribunal however the issue was raised whether the arrangement was a residential tenancy and subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) or not, and if it is whether the claim needed to be determined by the Tenancy Tribunal.
The reason the issue of whether the RTA applies or not was raised as a result of Mrs Allan and other occupants being sent a contract headed “Paeroa RV Centre Residency Agreement” (Residency Agreement) by the Board in April 2022. The Residency Agreement was newly written and was presented by Paeroa RV Centre to the occupants in order to update their contract with them. The residents were asked to sign and return the agreement by 1 May 2022.
The Residency Agreement contains several clauses that have specific references to the application of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) to the arrangement, including to rent increases and termination. The Residency Agreement states: 2 1 Both parties understood the agreement was, or was akin to, a licence to occupy the site, but did not provide a copy of the agreement 2 Clause 2.2 Residency Agreement “The parties acknowledge and agree that, as this agreement is intended to last longer than 50 days, the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 will apply to this agreement.”
Mrs Allan refused to sign the agreement for several reasons, including that the agreement stated that the RTA applied to the agreement and she was sceptical that it did. She believed that her and her husband’s arrangement with the Paeroa RV Centre was excluded from the RTA: a) under section 5(1)(t) as it was an arrangement involving bare land; b) under section 5(1)(r) as they owned shares in Paeroa RV Centre; and c) under section 5(3) as their cabin was relocatable.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear disputes between landlords and tenants provided the dispute relates to a tenancy to which the RTA applies (Section 77(1), RTA).
Section 4, RTA provides that the Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically excluded. Section 5 sets out the exclusions and particular circumstances where the RTA does not apply.
Section 5(1)(t) provides that the RTA does not apply to premises that are bare land (with or without facilities) on which the tenant has the right under the tenancy agreement to put a mobile home, caravan or other means of shelter.
Section 5(1)(r) provides that the RTA does not apply where the tenancy arises wholly from or depends wholly on the ownership by the tenant of any shares and a company that owns the premises.
Section 5(3) defines “relocatable home” for the purposes of section 5(1)(ta). Section 5(1)(ta) provides that the RTA does not apply where the tenant occupies, under a tenancy agreement, a cabin, caravan, vehicle, tent, or other building or structure that is located in a camping ground subject to regulations under the Health Act 1956 which is intended for human habitation for periods not exceeding 50 days in any continuous term of occupancy.
The representatives for the Paeroa RV Centre understood, having sought legal advice and having had the newly drafted agreement drawn up by their solicitor, that the RTA did apply as they are a registered camp ground and it is intended that occupancy on its sites are for periods exceeding 50 days.
A claim with very similar facts to this case, Britz and Calder v Novis 3 came before the Tribunal in 2021. The Tribunal determined it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. The Tribunal’s decision was appealed to the District Court 4 . 3 Britz and Calder v Novis [2021] NZTT Tauranga 4278891,429725,4286657,4286888 4 Britz and Calder v Novis [2021] NZDC 1695
The facts of that case are: Ms Britz had lived in a caravan at Katikati Naturist Park (Park) , which is a camp ground to which s 5(1)(ta) applies, since 2016. She rented the caravan she lived in from a third party and occupied a site at the Park. Mr Calder had lived in a cabin at the Park, on a different site, since 2015. He owned the cabin he lived in. Both occupants entered into a site licence agreement with leaseholder of the Park.
Ms Britz and Mr Calder claimed they were tenants subject to a residential tenancy and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear their claim.
The Tribunal found that the occupancy of Ms Britz and Mr Calder of their respective sites in the Park fell within the definition of bare land as set out in the section 5(1)(t) exemption. It found that the arrangement was therefore excluded from the operation of the RTA and that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear their claims.
The Tribunal considered arguments put forward by Ms Britz and Mr Calder’s legal counsel which included that there is a distinction between bare land and land in a camping ground, and found that to be an artificial distinction. The Adjudicator acknowledged that occupants residing in a caravan park or camp ground can fall within the jurisdiction of the RTA in particular circumstances, and agreed with the decision of an earlier Tribunal decision 5 that the section 5(1)(ta) exemption is intended to apply to situations where a cabin or other habitation is supplied by the owner/operator of a camping ground facility.
The Adjudicator emphasised the importance of considering the nature of the agreement and the use of the premises, and stated: “.. Mr Novis [leaseholder of the Park] had control over the land but no lawful control or authority over the caravan and cabin. Mr Novis offered bare land with facilities on which Ms Britz and Mr Calder have the right to place their form of shelter. Mr Novis was not offering a home, accommodation or shelter therefore the usual landlord and tenant relationship and respective rights and obligations under the RTA do not apply. In particular, Mr Novis would be stymied from carrying out obligations he would normally be expected to carry out such as effecting repairs, entering for the purpose of inspections, or fulfilling general maintenance obligations under section 45 RTA and the healthy homes standards”. 6
Judge Cameron, in determining the appeal, agreed with the Tribunal’s decision that the exclusion under section 5(1)(t) applies and accordingly that the RTA does not apply. He stated: “the sites are not residential premises but simply plots of bare land on which the appellants have placed their accommodation. The accommodation, being the 5 Fayden v Kapiti Holiday Resort [2020] NZTT Porirua 4277533 6 Britz and Calder v Novis [2021] NZTT Tauranga 4278891, at para 25 caravan and cabin, does not belong to the park and as such are not the subject of any lease to the appellants.” 7
Judge Cameron considered the legal submission that the exemption under s 5(1)(t) was only intended to apply to land not in a camping ground, and that as the Park is a camping ground the only relevant exemption is s 5 (1)(ta). The submission concluded that as occupancy had been for a much greater period than 50 days the s 5(1)(ta) exemption did not apply and therefore the RTA does apply. Judge Cameron’s response to the submission was: “On a plain interpretation of s 5(1((t) of the Act ‘bare land’ refers to any bare land (with or without facilities). Camping grounds are not expressly excluded from the provision. I consider that s 5(1)(ta) is intended to apply where the cabin or other shelter is supplied by the owner/operator of the camp ground along with the bare land place it is on. That exemption expressly applies “where the tenant occupies, under a tenancy agreement, a cabin, caravan...”. In the present case neither of the appellants occupy their accommodation under a tenancy agreement. Rather, they occupy bare land under a tenancy agreement with the right to erect a caravan or other means of shelter on their land.” 8
The facts of this case are the same in that Mrs Allan and her husband occupied a bare site at Paeroa RV Centre and had the right to locate the cabin they supplied on that site. This is not a situation where the RTA applies or should apply.
Accordingly I find the exclusion under s5(1)(t) applies, and accordingly the RTA does not apply. The claim is dismissed.
As Mrs Allan has been successful in her claim the Tribunal must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4599569 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat site 37, 10 Coronation Street, Paeroa, Paeroa

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4599569 — Healthy homes at Unit/Flat site 37, 10 Coronation Street, Paeroa, Paeroa

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