What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4691049?

The tribunal order states: The application by the Applicant is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4691049?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4691049?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4691049?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9606888-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4691049?

The tribunal order states: The application by the Applicant is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4691049?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4691049?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4691049?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9606888-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

32 Fergusson Avenue, Sandringham, Auckland 1025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4691049 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

The Applicant attended the hearing.

The Respondent did not attend, advise they were unable to attend or apply for an adjournment. The Respondent’s application for compensation is dismissed.

The Applicant claimed compensation and refund of the bond.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The property comprised three bedrooms. The Applicant occupied one bedroom and the Respondent occupied the other two. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal

There is a preliminary issue whether the Tribunal can hear the Applicants claim. Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.

The Applicant submitted during the hearing that she was a flatmate of the Respondent and the Respondent was the ‘main tenant’. Previously there was a different ‘main tenant’ which the Respondent took over from on 30 May 2023.

The Applicant had supporting evidence from her University Counselling service and Case Manager which referred to the Respondent as the Applicant’s ‘flatmate’.

In order to determine whether this was a flat house sharing agreement or tenancy, all of the relevant factors relating to the nature of the agreement and the arrangements between the parties needs to be assessed beyond the parties use of the words “flat mates”.

The Applicant rented her one bedroom but shared the kitchen, bathroom and backyard with the Respondent. The Applicant was able to lock her bedroom so she had exclusive occupation of it. The lounge was intended to be rented out by the Respondent as a bedroom but was otherwise used by the Respondent.

The Applicant advised she paid a bond of $1200.00 to the Respondent and gave ‘three weeks notice to vacate’ on 4 September 2023. All these terms are typical of Tenancy Agreements. There was no Tenancy Agreement provided by the parties.

The Respondent’s evidence had screenshots of a site the parties messaged through that was headed ‘Auckland flatmates wanted’. The messages from the Respondent refer to him stating: -‘finding a flatmate is a hassle’ -‘I can do is still pay my share of the rent’ - ‘my landlords dogs why im looking’ - ‘I want to agree that there is a new flatmate in that room when you leave’ -‘if theres a flatmate taking over your lease when you leave’. The Applicant also states in the messages: - ‘I believe we are the best tenants they can ever have’.

In considering the evidence, I find this more likely than not to be a flat house sharing arrangement from the physical arrangement and the repeated references in the parties correspondence to the parties being flatmates. The Applicants evidence referring to the Respondent being a ‘flatmate’ from her University and in the direct messages between the parties which repeated this. Although there was contrary evidence of the parties using terminology such as bond, rent and notice, I find the terminology was used by the parties for ease of reference. The evidence however is more persuasive of the finding that this was a dispute between two flatmates.

The Tribunal is unable to determine disputes between flatmates and therefore the Applicants application is dismissed. The Applicant may want to consider a different Tribunal to have this matter determined.

As the Applicant has not been successful, name suppression is not granted.

Order

The application by the Applicant is dismissed.
The application by the Respondent is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Reasons

The Applicant attended the hearing.
The Respondent did not attend, advise they were unable to attend or apply for an adjournment. The Respondent’s application for compensation is dismissed.
The Applicant claimed compensation and refund of the bond.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The property comprised three bedrooms. The Applicant occupied one bedroom and the Respondent occupied the other two. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal
There is a preliminary issue whether the Tribunal can hear the Applicants claim. Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
The Applicant submitted during the hearing that she was a flatmate of the Respondent and the Respondent was the ‘main tenant’. Previously there was a different ‘main tenant’ which the Respondent took over from on 30 May 2023.
The Applicant had supporting evidence from her University Counselling service and Case Manager which referred to the Respondent as the Applicant’s ‘flatmate’.
In order to determine whether this was a flat house sharing agreement or tenancy, all of the relevant factors relating to the nature of the agreement and the arrangements between the parties needs to be assessed beyond the parties use of the words “flat mates”.
The Applicant rented her one bedroom but shared the kitchen, bathroom and backyard with the Respondent. The Applicant was able to lock her bedroom so she had exclusive occupation of it. The lounge was intended to be rented out by the Respondent as a bedroom but was otherwise used by the Respondent.
The Applicant advised she paid a bond of $1200.00 to the Respondent and gave ‘three weeks notice to vacate’ on 4 September 2023. All these terms are typical of Tenancy Agreements. There was no Tenancy Agreement provided by the parties.
The Respondent’s evidence had screenshots of a site the parties messaged through that was headed ‘Auckland flatmates wanted’. The messages from the Respondent refer to him stating: -‘finding a flatmate is a hassle’ -‘I can do is still pay my share of the rent’ - ‘my landlords dogs why im looking’ - ‘I want to agree that there is a new flatmate in that room when you leave’ -‘if theres a flatmate taking over your lease when you leave’. The Applicant also states in the messages: - ‘I believe we are the best tenants they can ever have’.
In considering the evidence, I find this more likely than not to be a flat house sharing arrangement from the physical arrangement and the repeated references in the parties correspondence to the parties being flatmates. The Applicants evidence referring to the Respondent being a ‘flatmate’ from her University and in the direct messages between the parties which repeated this. Although there was contrary evidence of the parties using terminology such as bond, rent and notice, I find the terminology was used by the parties for ease of reference. The evidence however is more persuasive of the finding that this was a dispute between two flatmates.
The Tribunal is unable to determine disputes between flatmates and therefore the Applicants application is dismissed. The Applicant may want to consider a different Tribunal to have this matter determined.
As the Applicant has not been successful, name suppression is not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4691049 — Tenancy dispute at 32 Fergusson Avenue, Sandringham, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4691049 — Tenancy dispute at 32 Fergusson Avenue, Sandringham, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions