What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4722610?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4722610?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4722610?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4722610?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9774093-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4722610?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4722610?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4722610?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4722610?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9774093-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Epuni, Lower Hutt Tenancy Tribunal Case 4722610 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.
By way of declaration: the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the relationship between the parties.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by remote teleconference.
Ms Sweetman has filed a number of claims against Mr Pahina pursuant to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) on the basis that he was her landlord during her occupation at the address between January and October 2023. Mr Pahina disputes them primarily saying that he was not Ms Sweetman’s landlord as she was a flatmate of his tenant, therefore she is not entitled to bring these claims to the Tribunal against him.
There is no written agreement, but it is not disputed that in November 2022, Mr Gooding moved into Mr Pahina’s house, and they orally agreed a tenancy. There was also another tenant in the sleepout. In early 2023, Ms Sweetman moved in with Mr Gooding as he was then her partner.
Later in 2023 the home was to be sold subject to a mortgagee sale. Mr Gooding gave notice and vacated, however just prior he and Ms Sweetman had separated. Ms Sweetman did not vacate the premise in accordance with Mr Gooding’s notice, so Mr Pahina attempted to serve a trespass notice on her and changed the locks so she could not re-enter the home after it had been sold.
The preliminary issue therefore is whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. The law
Section 77(1) of the RTA 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.
Section 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. The terms ’residential premises’, ‘tenancy’, and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined as: residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises; and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement.
Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Section 10 RTA provides that, where a party to proceedings contends that the Act does not apply, they must establish the facts supporting their contention. In other words, Mr Pahina has the burden of proving the Act does not apply.
Section 5 of the RTA details exclusions to the RTA. S5(n) specifically excludes arrangements where the premises are being used for residence by the landlord. Such a situation may be one where a tenant has flatmates to help them pay the rent.
In the District Court decision of Musson v Dobrisek, Catley and Low (CIV 2006- 032-36, Judge Broadmore stated, while excluding flatmate relationships from being under the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal, that “...the use of the word “flatmate” does not in itself define the nature of the legal relationship between a flatmate and any landlord”....By "flatmates" I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, all occupants are on the same footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens."
Accordingly, The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear disputes between tenants and flat mates, only between tenants and landlords. Parties’ submissions
Mr Pahina says his agreement was solely with Ms Sweetman’s ex-partner Glen Gooding. When Ms Sweetman moved in Mr Pahina says he was only told of this after it had happened. He said to Mr Gooding that was fine, but the tenancy remained between the two of them. He says they both considered Mr Gooding to be the tenant and Ms Sweetman to be his flatmate.
A letter has been filed by Mr Gooding agreeing with this understanding, some excerpts as follows: “I was now the tenant. I had the relationship and communication with the landlord....Alice was a flatmate, she moved in with me....I was ultimately responsible for the rent being paid....I made it clear to Alice that she needed to vacate the property before the 26 th of October. She had about three weeks to organise this, I believed this was reasonable as the rule of thumb for flatmates is two weeks notice.”
Ms Sweetman submits that she was a tenant because that is the way Mr Pahina treated her until it was no longer convenient for him to do so. She relies on the following: a. When she moved in, she was under the impression that the tenant of the sleepout was the landlord. In June he was trespassed by Mr Pahina due to not paying rent and smashing the sleepout. After that he gave his account number to Mr Gooding and said they had to make one payment for their rent, so it was to come from Mr Gooding. She considers therefore that from June her and Mr Gooding were joint tenants. b. Mr Pahina wrote a letter for her to give to WINZ to assist her to obtain alternative accommodation. The letter says: Unfortunately this means Alice Sweetman who resided here has to move out as well with the auction taking place this friday. My Tenant Glenn Gooding allowed Alice Sweetman to use the spare rooms to live and, this made it easier for him to cover rent . Glenn has moved out and Alice is in the process of moving now. c. She communicated directly with the real estate agents who were marketing the property. d. The gas and power were allegedly in her name. e. She paid more rent than Mr Gooding. f. She communicated directly with Mr Pahina. g. She made two rental payments towards the end of the tenancy directly to Mr Pahina.
Ms Sweetman also argues in the alternative that because her and Mr Gooding were in a relationship, even if she hadn’t been a tenant as per the definition in the RTA, she was by virtue of the Relationship Property Act 1976 (RPA). Discussion and findings
I accept Mr Gooding’s evidence that the primary relationship here was between himself and Mr Pahina. Their relationship commenced the earliest and they negotiated the terms. Although it was an oral contract, it was still tenancy agreement pursuant to section 13C of the RTA which commenced in November 2023.
To be a valid contract, the key elements of a contract must be present, that is an offer, unequivocal acceptance, agreement on fundamental terms and intention to create legal obligations. Mr Gooding and Mr Pahina had all of these elements in their initial discussions in November and subsequent discussions in June when the tenant in the sleepout vacated. Most importantly, they both had the intention to create a binding agreement with each other solely.
I do not consider the evidence establishes that that agreement was modified to include Mr Sweetman at any point. She moved in without consultation with Mr Pahina and did not even know about him until June. Mr Gooding was the primary point of communication with Mr Pahina and he provided the notice to end the tenancy. Ms Sweetman’s engagement, or attempted engagement with Mr Pahina and the real estate agents only appears to have commenced substantively in the last weeks of the occupation.
Mr Pahina’s communications with WINZ are consistent with his position, as are the text evidence. He twice declined to sign a tenancy agreement with Ms Sweetman on the basis that he already had a verbal agreement with Mr Gooding.
Accordingly, I find it established in evidence to the requisite standard, that is the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, that the relevant tenancy here was between Mr Pahina and Mr Gooding. Accordingly, as Ms Sweetman was a flatmate of Mr Gooding’s, her claims cannot be heard in the Tenancy Tribunal. If she wishes to pursue her grievances, she will need to do so in the Disputes Tribunal.
As to Ms Sweetman’s second submission that given she was Mr Gooding’s partner, pursuant to the RPA, she has the same rights as him as a tenant. This is not a valid submission as the RPA has no bearing on the rights and responsibilities incurred under the RTA on the basis of a tenancy agreement.
This application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4722610 — Tenancy dispute in Epuni, Lower Hutt

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4722610 — Tenancy dispute in Epuni, Lower Hutt

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