What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4648528?

The tribunal order states: Sergio Serra is not a party to the tenancy agreement with Nicole Bostock.

How much money was awarded in case 4648528?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4648528?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4648528?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10297492-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4648528?

The tribunal order states: Sergio Serra is not a party to the tenancy agreement with Nicole Bostock.

How much money was awarded in case 4648528?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4648528?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4648528?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10297492-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 Jellicoe Parade, Surfdale, Waiheke Island 1081 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4648528 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Sergio Serra is not a party to the tenancy agreement with Nicole Bostock.
The applications are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The parties seek a determination from the Tribunal as to whether this tenancy is a residential tenancy (the tenant’s position) or a flatmate arrangement, excluded from the Act (the landlord’s position).
For the reasons outlined below, I am satisfied that Mr. Serra is not a party to the tenancy agreement with Ms. Bostock. Accordingly, this is not a residential tenancy relationship to which the Act applies. Background
The landlord entered into a residential tenancy agreement with Sofia Gareis. It is accepted that this is a residential tenancy to which the Act applies.
The tenant (for the sake of this decision) is Mr. Serra, who resided at the premises with Ms. Gareis. He argues that he is also a tenant of Ms. Bostock’s.
The landlord argues that he was a flatmate of Ms Gareis, and there is no legal relationship between them. If there is a tenancy, then it is between Ms Gareis as sublandlord and Mr Serra as tenant.
There is a residential tenant agreement that names the landlord as Ms Bostock and the tenant as Ms Gareis. However, it is also signed by Mr Serra and Mr Cardozo (another occupant, who is not part of this application). Ms Bostock says that took place after she signed the document.
The tenancy agreement includes a provision that the tenancy will end if Ms Gareis vacates the premises. Which, the landlord explains, arises from her concern at not having met Mr Cardozo or Mr Serra. She wanted to ensure that ultimate responsibility for the premises remained with the party she had met and contracted with.
The bond lodgement form shows Ms Bostock as landlord and Ms Gareis and Mr Cardozo as tenants. It does not refer to Mr Serra.
The landlord’s evidence is that she only met Ms Gareis prior to the tenancy, and all her discussions around the tenancy were with Ms Gareis. She did meet Mr Cardozo once, shortly before the tenancy commenced. She did not meet Mr Serra prior to the tenancy commencing. She was aware that there would be 3 occupants to the premises, and this is noted on the tenancy agreement. Communication was with all occupants for transparency.
The tenant believed he was a tenant as he has signed the tenancy agreement and was included in communications between the parties. However, he accepts that he paid rent to Ms. Gareis who was responsible for paying rent to Ms. Bostock.
There was a clear breakdown in communication and in the relationship between the occupants of the premises, which is detailed in the communications within the file.
The tenancy ultimately ended, and the bond was refunded to Ms. Gareis. There is a dispute as to whether Mr. Serra was refunded (by Ms. Gareis) an appropriate portion of the bond.
The application to the Tribunal followed. Of note, neither Ms. Gareis nor Mr. Cardozo are party to the Tribunal application.

Who are the parties to the agreement?

The central question for me, is whether Mr. Serra was a party to the tenancy agreement with Ms. Bostock, or whether his agreement – in whatever form – is with Ms. Gareis.
It is clear from the documents – the tenancy agreement and the bond lodgment form – that Mr. Serra is not recorded as a party. I consider that to be so, despite the fact that he signed the agreement. He is not named in the parties’ section of the document. That document provides the starting point for consideration.
I consider that that would not, as a question of fact, preclude him from being a tenant of Ms. Bostock if that was the intention of the parties. While it is clearly preferable to have these matters accurately recorded in writing, and it is a requirement of the Act that tenancy agreements are in writing, the Tribunal routinely deals with applications which are outside this ideal.
It is clear that Ms. Bostock was aware that Mr. Serra would be residing at the property. There was a clause stipulating increased rent if there were 4 occupants, included to cover the situation where Mr. Serra had a partner residing with him.
However, I accept the evidence of Ms. Bostock that she only met Ms. Gareis prior to the tenancy, and that she was clear that it was Ms. Gareis that she was renting the premises to, albeit aware that the other two occupants would reside there. This is reflected in the parties named in the agreement, the fact that the agreement stated that there were to be 3 occupants (un-named) and the additional provision that the agreement would end if Ms. Gareis vacated the premises.
I accept Ms. Bostock’s evidence that she considered Ms. Gareis was the “head tenant” and liable for all tenant obligations under the agreement.
Accordingly, I find that the parties to this tenancy agreement were Ms. Bostock and Ms. Gareis. Mr. Serra was not a tenant of Ms. Bostock.
The applications are therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
I make no comment on the nature of the relationship between Mr. Serra and Ms. Gareis. That is a matter for any future applications to consider.

Order

Sergio Serra is not a party to the tenancy agreement with Nicole Bostock.
The applications are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The parties seek a determination from the Tribunal as to whether this tenancy is a residential tenancy (the tenant’s position) or a flatmate arrangement, excluded from the Act (the landlord’s position).
For the reasons outlined below, I am satisfied that Mr. Serra is not a party to the tenancy agreement with Ms. Bostock. Accordingly, this is not a residential tenancy relationship to which the Act applies. Background
The landlord entered into a residential tenancy agreement with Sofia Gareis. It is accepted that this is a residential tenancy to which the Act applies.
The tenant (for the sake of this decision) is Mr. Serra, who resided at the premises with Ms. Gareis. He argues that he is also a tenant of Ms. Bostock’s.
The landlord argues that he was a flatmate of Ms Gareis, and there is no legal relationship between them. If there is a tenancy, then it is between Ms Gareis as sublandlord and Mr Serra as tenant.
There is a residential tenant agreement that names the landlord as Ms Bostock and the tenant as Ms Gareis. However, it is also signed by Mr Serra and Mr Cardozo (another occupant, who is not part of this application). Ms Bostock says that took place after she signed the document.
The tenancy agreement includes a provision that the tenancy will end if Ms Gareis vacates the premises. Which, the landlord explains, arises from her concern at not having met Mr Cardozo or Mr Serra. She wanted to ensure that ultimate responsibility for the premises remained with the party she had met and contracted with.
The bond lodgement form shows Ms Bostock as landlord and Ms Gareis and Mr Cardozo as tenants. It does not refer to Mr Serra.
The landlord’s evidence is that she only met Ms Gareis prior to the tenancy, and all her discussions around the tenancy were with Ms Gareis. She did meet Mr Cardozo once, shortly before the tenancy commenced. She did not meet Mr Serra prior to the tenancy commencing. She was aware that there would be 3 occupants to the premises, and this is noted on the tenancy agreement. Communication was with all occupants for transparency.
The tenant believed he was a tenant as he has signed the tenancy agreement and was included in communications between the parties. However, he accepts that he paid rent to Ms. Gareis who was responsible for paying rent to Ms. Bostock.
There was a clear breakdown in communication and in the relationship between the occupants of the premises, which is detailed in the communications within the file.
The tenancy ultimately ended, and the bond was refunded to Ms. Gareis. There is a dispute as to whether Mr. Serra was refunded (by Ms. Gareis) an appropriate portion of the bond.
The application to the Tribunal followed. Of note, neither Ms. Gareis nor Mr. Cardozo are party to the Tribunal application.

Who are the parties to the agreement?

The central question for me, is whether Mr. Serra was a party to the tenancy agreement with Ms. Bostock, or whether his agreement – in whatever form – is with Ms. Gareis.
It is clear from the documents – the tenancy agreement and the bond lodgment form – that Mr. Serra is not recorded as a party. I consider that to be so, despite the fact that he signed the agreement. He is not named in the parties’ section of the document. That document provides the starting point for consideration.
I consider that that would not, as a question of fact, preclude him from being a tenant of Ms. Bostock if that was the intention of the parties. While it is clearly preferable to have these matters accurately recorded in writing, and it is a requirement of the Act that tenancy agreements are in writing, the Tribunal routinely deals with applications which are outside this ideal.
It is clear that Ms. Bostock was aware that Mr. Serra would be residing at the property. There was a clause stipulating increased rent if there were 4 occupants, included to cover the situation where Mr. Serra had a partner residing with him.
However, I accept the evidence of Ms. Bostock that she only met Ms. Gareis prior to the tenancy, and that she was clear that it was Ms. Gareis that she was renting the premises to, albeit aware that the other two occupants would reside there. This is reflected in the parties named in the agreement, the fact that the agreement stated that there were to be 3 occupants (un-named) and the additional provision that the agreement would end if Ms. Gareis vacated the premises.
I accept Ms. Bostock’s evidence that she considered Ms. Gareis was the “head tenant” and liable for all tenant obligations under the agreement.
Accordingly, I find that the parties to this tenancy agreement were Ms. Bostock and Ms. Gareis. Mr. Serra was not a tenant of Ms. Bostock.
The applications are therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
I make no comment on the nature of the relationship between Mr. Serra and Ms. Gareis. That is a matter for any future applications to consider.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4648528 — Tenancy dispute at 2 Jellicoe Parade, Surfdale, Waiheke Island 1081

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4648528 — Tenancy dispute at 2 Jellicoe Parade, Surfdale, Waiheke Island 1081

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Who are the parties to the agreement?

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Who are the parties to the agreement?

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions