What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4609990?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4609990?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent: $2,620.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4609990?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4609990?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9263261-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4609990?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4609990?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent: $2,620.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4609990?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4609990?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9263261-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room sleepout, 160 Gleeson Road, Pollok, RD 3, Pollok Tenancy Tribunal Case 4609990 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4609990 — net $2,080.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 15 May 2023	$2,620.00		Rent to 15 May 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond (held by landlord		$560.00	Bond (held by landlord
Total award	$2,640.44	$560.00
Net award	$2,080.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,080.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for injuries to his dog is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Sarah-Louise Cattley must pay Graham Terry Marshall $2,080.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the telephone hearing on 7 August 2023. Background
The parties signed a tenancy agreement for a stand-alone 20m2 sleepout on private rural land. The sleepout has a toilet, shower, kitchenette with hot plate and space for a fridge. Power was generated onsite from solar panels. Water supplied to the sleepout was a combination of rainwater and spring water pumped from the ground. The tenancy agreement provided for the Disputes Tribunal to have jurisdiction in the event of any dispute.
The rent was $280.00 per week and included power and water. A bond of $560.00 was paid. The tenancy started on 31 December 2021.
The tenancy agreement allowed the tenant to have a pet. Both parties understood that the tenant would bring her dog Hades onto the property. Subsequently the tenant brought a second dog. On 2 April 2023 Hades attacked the landlord’s dog Milo, causing Milo serious injury.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for rent arrears, refund of the bond, and compensation for vet bills. Relevant law
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided. A “tenancy” means the right to occupy “residential premises” in consideration for rent. Residential premises are any premises used or intended for occupation as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation would be unlawful. “Premises” includes any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter on any land and intended for occupation on that land.
The Act is excluded in relation to certain types of premises pursuant to section 5(1) of the Act.
Section 5(1)(ta) excludes the occupation of a cabin, caravan, or other building or structure that is located in a camping ground subject to regulations under the Health Act 1956 (a reference to the Camping-Grounds Regulations 1985) and that is not intended for more than 50 days of continuous occupancy.
Section 5(1)(tb) excludes temporary accommodation provided in a relocatable home. A relocatable home means a structure located in a camping ground subject to regulations under the Health Act 1956, occupied as a single housekeeping unit and self-contained in respect of domestic equipment and facilities. Jurisdiction – tenancy agreement
The definitions of “tenancy”, and “residential premises” in the Act are met. There was a right to occupy residential premises for rent. I am satisfied that the agreement for occupation of the sleep out was a residential tenancy covered by the Act.
None of the exclusions in section 5(1) appear to apply. While the sleepout could be described as a “cabin” or “relocatable home”, it is not situated in a camping ground regulated under the Health Act 1956. The sleep out was not intended for habitation for periods not exceeding 50 days or for temporary accommodation – the tenancy ran for more than a year.
I find that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the landlord’s claim for rent. Rent
The landlord provided a rent summary showing that there were rent arrears at the end of the tenancy on 15 May 2023. The tenant accepted that the rent had been in arrears during the tenancy. I award rent arrears in the sum of $2,620.00.
The landlord is holding the bond. This is deducted from the rent owing.
The tenant said there were issues with the facilities at the property. She said there were a number of days when there was no power or water. There was no heating at the property because the heater would overload the power supply. The tenant also complained about unwanted visits to the property by the landlord’s wife and intimated that the healthy homes standards had not been met.
This was an unusual tenancy, being explicitly “off grid” in terms of the power and water supply, which the tenant knew before signing the tenancy agreement. The agreement noted that the landlord and tenant would have to work together on “poor sun” days to ensure power supply for both parties.
Unless the tenant can show that the solar system was not maintained in a reasonable state of repair, it is not obvious to me that the power arrangements were in breach of the Act, and some loss of power due to weather conditions might have been expected.
The landlord had an obligation to provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water. The available evidence does not enable the Tribunal to conclude that this was not the case.
Equally, the available evidence does not establish that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by going to the cabin and knocking on the door to enquire about payment of the rent. Like any other visitor, the landlord had an implied permission to ask to speak to the tenant, so long as the frequency or timing of the visits did not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant.
There is insufficient evidence to address whether the sleepout complied with the healthy homes standards in terms of heating. The complaint seemed to be, not that there was no heating, but that it was affected by intermittent power supply. Jurisdiction – injuries to pet dog
I find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to award compensation for the attack by the tenant’s dog on Milo. The attack happened in the context of the tenancy but does not involve landlord and tenant obligations as regulated by the tenancy agreement or the Act. The relevant statutory provision would seem to be section 63 of the Dog Control Act 1996, a provision over which the Disputes Tribunal has jurisdiction.
I have considered the fact that the tenancy agreement only gave permission for one pet. I assume, for the sake of argument, that it was a breach of contract for the tenant to bring another dog onto the property. The breach was not the cause of the attack on Milo, even if the arrival of a further pet disturbed the relationship between the landlord’s and tenant’s dogs as the landlord suggested. The direct cause of the injury to Milo was not a breach of the tenancy agreement, but the actions of the tenant’s dog.
The Tribunal does not have power to transfer matters to the Disputes Tribunal. I must strike out this part of the application for lack of jurisdiction. Filing fee
The landlord has established some rent arrears. I award the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4609990 — net $2,080.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 15 May 2023	$2,620.00		Rent to 15 May 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond (held by landlord		$560.00	Bond (held by landlord
Total award	$2,640.44	$560.00
Net award	$2,080.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,080.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for injuries to his dog is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Sarah-Louise Cattley must pay Graham Terry Marshall $2,080.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the telephone hearing on 7 August 2023. Background
The parties signed a tenancy agreement for a stand-alone 20m2 sleepout on private rural land. The sleepout has a toilet, shower, kitchenette with hot plate and space for a fridge. Power was generated onsite from solar panels. Water supplied to the sleepout was a combination of rainwater and spring water pumped from the ground. The tenancy agreement provided for the Disputes Tribunal to have jurisdiction in the event of any dispute.
The rent was $280.00 per week and included power and water. A bond of $560.00 was paid. The tenancy started on 31 December 2021.
The tenancy agreement allowed the tenant to have a pet. Both parties understood that the tenant would bring her dog Hades onto the property. Subsequently the tenant brought a second dog. On 2 April 2023 Hades attacked the landlord’s dog Milo, causing Milo serious injury.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for rent arrears, refund of the bond, and compensation for vet bills. Relevant law
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided. A “tenancy” means the right to occupy “residential premises” in consideration for rent. Residential premises are any premises used or intended for occupation as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation would be unlawful. “Premises” includes any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter on any land and intended for occupation on that land.
The Act is excluded in relation to certain types of premises pursuant to section 5(1) of the Act.
Section 5(1)(ta) excludes the occupation of a cabin, caravan, or other building or structure that is located in a camping ground subject to regulations under the Health Act 1956 (a reference to the Camping-Grounds Regulations 1985) and that is not intended for more than 50 days of continuous occupancy.
Section 5(1)(tb) excludes temporary accommodation provided in a relocatable home. A relocatable home means a structure located in a camping ground subject to regulations under the Health Act 1956, occupied as a single housekeeping unit and self-contained in respect of domestic equipment and facilities. Jurisdiction – tenancy agreement
The definitions of “tenancy”, and “residential premises” in the Act are met. There was a right to occupy residential premises for rent. I am satisfied that the agreement for occupation of the sleep out was a residential tenancy covered by the Act.
None of the exclusions in section 5(1) appear to apply. While the sleepout could be described as a “cabin” or “relocatable home”, it is not situated in a camping ground regulated under the Health Act 1956. The sleep out was not intended for habitation for periods not exceeding 50 days or for temporary accommodation – the tenancy ran for more than a year.
I find that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the landlord’s claim for rent. Rent
The landlord provided a rent summary showing that there were rent arrears at the end of the tenancy on 15 May 2023. The tenant accepted that the rent had been in arrears during the tenancy. I award rent arrears in the sum of $2,620.00.
The landlord is holding the bond. This is deducted from the rent owing.
The tenant said there were issues with the facilities at the property. She said there were a number of days when there was no power or water. There was no heating at the property because the heater would overload the power supply. The tenant also complained about unwanted visits to the property by the landlord’s wife and intimated that the healthy homes standards had not been met.
This was an unusual tenancy, being explicitly “off grid” in terms of the power and water supply, which the tenant knew before signing the tenancy agreement. The agreement noted that the landlord and tenant would have to work together on “poor sun” days to ensure power supply for both parties.
Unless the tenant can show that the solar system was not maintained in a reasonable state of repair, it is not obvious to me that the power arrangements were in breach of the Act, and some loss of power due to weather conditions might have been expected.
The landlord had an obligation to provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water. The available evidence does not enable the Tribunal to conclude that this was not the case.
Equally, the available evidence does not establish that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by going to the cabin and knocking on the door to enquire about payment of the rent. Like any other visitor, the landlord had an implied permission to ask to speak to the tenant, so long as the frequency or timing of the visits did not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant.
There is insufficient evidence to address whether the sleepout complied with the healthy homes standards in terms of heating. The complaint seemed to be, not that there was no heating, but that it was affected by intermittent power supply. Jurisdiction – injuries to pet dog
I find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to award compensation for the attack by the tenant’s dog on Milo. The attack happened in the context of the tenancy but does not involve landlord and tenant obligations as regulated by the tenancy agreement or the Act. The relevant statutory provision would seem to be section 63 of the Dog Control Act 1996, a provision over which the Disputes Tribunal has jurisdiction.
I have considered the fact that the tenancy agreement only gave permission for one pet. I assume, for the sake of argument, that it was a breach of contract for the tenant to bring another dog onto the property. The breach was not the cause of the attack on Milo, even if the arrival of a further pet disturbed the relationship between the landlord’s and tenant’s dogs as the landlord suggested. The direct cause of the injury to Milo was not a breach of the tenancy agreement, but the actions of the tenant’s dog.
The Tribunal does not have power to transfer matters to the Disputes Tribunal. I must strike out this part of the application for lack of jurisdiction. Filing fee
The landlord has established some rent arrears. I award the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4609990 — Tenancy dispute at Room sleepout, 160 Gleeson Road, Pollok, RD 3, Pollok

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4609990 — Tenancy dispute at Room sleepout, 160 Gleeson Road, Pollok, RD 3, Pollok

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions