What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4620402?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4620402?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4620402?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4620402?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9276262-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4620402?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4620402?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4620402?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4620402?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9276262-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 2, 73 Hampshire Street, Aranui, Christchurch 8061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4620402 — Exemplary damages

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply to publication of this decision.
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine Ms Johnson’s application for a tenancy of the premises.
If the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine Ms Johnson’s application for exemplary damages for discrimination against her in respect of the grant of a tenancy agreement of the premises to her, it is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Ms Johnson attended, and Ms Eder attended for Kainga Ora-Homes and Communities (Kainga Ora). Background
Kainga Ora granted a tenancy of the premises to a person (the tenant), and he allowed Ms Johnson to occupy the premises with him as a boarder or housemate. Ms Johnson paid board to the tenant.
The tenant gave notice to terminate his tenancy and left the premises. Ms Johnson remained in occupation of the premises.
Ms Johnson said that she applied to Kainga Ora for a tenancy of the premises. It is unclear whether Kainga Ora received an application from her or, if it did, what happened to it. That is not important for the purposes of this application.
Subsequently, the Police attended at the premises, served Ms Johnson with a trespass notice, and escorted her off the premises. She has not occupied the premises since then. It is not clear who issued the trespass notice, and that is not important for the purposes of this application.
Ms Johnson has made an application to the Tribunal to be granted a tenancy of the premises. During the hearing she applied for exemplary damages for the unlawful act of the landlord discriminating against her in respect of the grant of a tenancy in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1993 (s12 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)). Consideration and Determination
Section 2 of the Act defines a tenancy as the right to occupy the premises in consideration for rent. A tenancy agreement is an agreement to grant a person a tenancy.
Section 77 of the Act gives the Tribunal jurisdiction to determine any dispute that exists between a landlord and a tenant that relates to any tenancy to which the Act applies or did apply at the material time.
In this case Ms Johnson is not and has never been a tenant of the premises. She accepted that herself. She then tried to suggest that a mere occupier is the same as a tenant. Plainly that is wrong. The fact that she was paying the tenant for the right to occupy the premises does not make her a tenant and it certainly does not make her Kainga Ora’s tenant.
Because Ms Johnson is not and has never been Kainga Ora’s tenant of the premises, this is not a dispute between a landlord and a tenant and so the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine it.
Ms Johnson asserted that Kainga Ora has discriminated against her in terms of s12 of the Act. There does not need to be a tenancy agreement for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction to grant exemplary damages under s12 (s12(4)). If a prospective landlord decides not to grant a person a tenancy agreement for reasons that contravene the Human Rights Act, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine an application by that person under s12.
In my view, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider an application from Ms Johnson under a12 because there is no evidence that Kainga Ora has ever received let alone considered and decided an application from her for a tenancy of the premises. Therefore, s12 is not engaged.
If I am wrong about that, because there is no evidence of an application or a decision not to grant Ms Johnson a tenancy, and no evidence of any discrimination against her by Kainga Ora, the application is bound to fail and must be dismissed.

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply to publication of this decision.
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine Ms Johnson’s application for a tenancy of the premises.
If the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine Ms Johnson’s application for exemplary damages for discrimination against her in respect of the grant of a tenancy agreement of the premises to her, it is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Ms Johnson attended, and Ms Eder attended for Kainga Ora-Homes and Communities (Kainga Ora). Background
Kainga Ora granted a tenancy of the premises to a person (the tenant), and he allowed Ms Johnson to occupy the premises with him as a boarder or housemate. Ms Johnson paid board to the tenant.
The tenant gave notice to terminate his tenancy and left the premises. Ms Johnson remained in occupation of the premises.
Ms Johnson said that she applied to Kainga Ora for a tenancy of the premises. It is unclear whether Kainga Ora received an application from her or, if it did, what happened to it. That is not important for the purposes of this application.
Subsequently, the Police attended at the premises, served Ms Johnson with a trespass notice, and escorted her off the premises. She has not occupied the premises since then. It is not clear who issued the trespass notice, and that is not important for the purposes of this application.
Ms Johnson has made an application to the Tribunal to be granted a tenancy of the premises. During the hearing she applied for exemplary damages for the unlawful act of the landlord discriminating against her in respect of the grant of a tenancy in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1993 (s12 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)). Consideration and Determination
Section 2 of the Act defines a tenancy as the right to occupy the premises in consideration for rent. A tenancy agreement is an agreement to grant a person a tenancy.
Section 77 of the Act gives the Tribunal jurisdiction to determine any dispute that exists between a landlord and a tenant that relates to any tenancy to which the Act applies or did apply at the material time.
In this case Ms Johnson is not and has never been a tenant of the premises. She accepted that herself. She then tried to suggest that a mere occupier is the same as a tenant. Plainly that is wrong. The fact that she was paying the tenant for the right to occupy the premises does not make her a tenant and it certainly does not make her Kainga Ora’s tenant.
Because Ms Johnson is not and has never been Kainga Ora’s tenant of the premises, this is not a dispute between a landlord and a tenant and so the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine it.
Ms Johnson asserted that Kainga Ora has discriminated against her in terms of s12 of the Act. There does not need to be a tenancy agreement for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction to grant exemplary damages under s12 (s12(4)). If a prospective landlord decides not to grant a person a tenancy agreement for reasons that contravene the Human Rights Act, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine an application by that person under s12.
In my view, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider an application from Ms Johnson under a12 because there is no evidence that Kainga Ora has ever received let alone considered and decided an application from her for a tenancy of the premises. Therefore, s12 is not engaged.
If I am wrong about that, because there is no evidence of an application or a decision not to grant Ms Johnson a tenancy, and no evidence of any discrimination against her by Kainga Ora, the application is bound to fail and must be dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4620402 — Exemplary damages at Flat 2, 73 Hampshire Street, Aranui, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4620402 — Exemplary damages at Flat 2, 73 Hampshire Street, Aranui, Christchurch 8061

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