What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4743949?

The tribunal order states: to address the substantive matters in Cherie Waitoa’s

How much money was awarded in case 4743949?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4743949?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4743949?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9815979-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4743949?

The tribunal order states: to address the substantive matters in Cherie Waitoa’s

How much money was awarded in case 4743949?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4743949?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4743949?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9815979-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9B Kingsley Place, Mount Maunganui, Mount Maunganui Tenancy Tribunal Case 4743949 — Boarding House

Order

to address the substantive matters in Cherie Waitoa’s application.

If either party intends to produce any additional documents at the next hearing, they must send two copies to the Tribunal at least five days after the date of this order.
If the respondent also has a claim they want dealt with at the next hearing, they must file their application with Tenancy Services within ten days of this order and refer to the current application number.

Reasons

Ms Waitoa made an application to Tenancy Services regarding a dispute she had with her landlord, Mr Michael Mita.
Mr Mita claimed that the Tenancy Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the dispute and he cited section 5(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which states that the Act does not apply: “where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.”
Both parties attended the hearing by teleconference.
Ms Waitoa and Mr Mita are related: Mr Mita is Ms Waitoa’s mother’s first cousin. Ms Waitoa considers Mr Mita an uncle.
Ms Waitoa moved into the premises on 27 May 2023, signed a “House Sharing Agreement” on 6 June 2023, and lived there until she says she was forcibly removed on 20 November 2023, nearly six months later.
Mr Mita is a contractor who travels as part of his work. He claimed that he stayed at the premises when he was in town and that Ms Waitoa was a flatmate. Mr Mita retained two bedrooms and a garage, all of which were kept locked and contained his personal items. The house was provided to Ms Waitoa fully furnished.
Ms Waitoa says Mr Mita stayed at the property on only two occasions: The first was on the weekend when Ms Waitoa moved in when Mr Mita stayed two nights. The second was the following weekend when Mr Mita visited to have Ms Waitoa sign their House Sharing Agreement regarding the tenancy. Ms Waitoa stated that Mr Mita visited on one other occasion but did not stay the night.
Mr Mita claimed he possibly stayed on another two or three occasions, but he was unable to provide any details.
Ms Waitoa stated that the two bedrooms that Mr Mita used for his belongings were down a hallway that separated them and the garage from the rest of the house.
Mr Mita said that when he visited he paid the courtesy of calling ahead and giving as much notice as possible. Ms Waitoa stated that because Mr Mita is family, she didn’t require him to give any notice.
Ms Waitoa stated that she alone paid the wifi bill, and the power bill. Mr Mita stated there was a difficulty due to the power provider changing. Although Mr Mita did not agree that he didn’t contribute to the power bill, he was not able to provide any information to indicate that he did contribute. Ms Waitoa stated that she never expected Mr Mita to make a contribution to either bill because he was not living there.
Ms Waitoa accepted the two bedrooms at the end of house that Mr Mita kept his belongings in, were available to be used by Mr Mita to sleep in if he wished to visit. This could have been a possibility whether the agreement was one of tenant-landlord, or one of flatmates; it is not in itself determinative of the nature of the agreement.
The family connection between Mr Mita and Ms Waitoa, the fact that Mr Mita kept belongings at the house he furnished, and the fact that there was a bedroom available for him to use if he had had the need are all factors I have considered in favour of Mr Mita using the house as a place of residence.
However the test of whether the agreement is exempted from the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is specific and requires Mr Mita to have used the premises principally as a place of residence. I find that Mr Mita stayed at the premises only on two occasions, for a total of three nights over a period of almost six months. I do not find this meets the test of “principally as a place of residence.”
Because of this I find that Ms Waitoa’s tenancy of the said premises is not excluded from the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The parties will be contacted by Tenancy Services regarding the time and place of the next hearing for this matter.

Order

to address the substantive matters in Cherie Waitoa’s application.

If either party intends to produce any additional documents at the next hearing, they must send two copies to the Tribunal at least five days after the date of this order.
If the respondent also has a claim they want dealt with at the next hearing, they must file their application with Tenancy Services within ten days of this order and refer to the current application number.

Reasons

Ms Waitoa made an application to Tenancy Services regarding a dispute she had with her landlord, Mr Michael Mita.
Mr Mita claimed that the Tenancy Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the dispute and he cited section 5(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which states that the Act does not apply: “where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.”
Both parties attended the hearing by teleconference.
Ms Waitoa and Mr Mita are related: Mr Mita is Ms Waitoa’s mother’s first cousin. Ms Waitoa considers Mr Mita an uncle.
Ms Waitoa moved into the premises on 27 May 2023, signed a “House Sharing Agreement” on 6 June 2023, and lived there until she says she was forcibly removed on 20 November 2023, nearly six months later.
Mr Mita is a contractor who travels as part of his work. He claimed that he stayed at the premises when he was in town and that Ms Waitoa was a flatmate. Mr Mita retained two bedrooms and a garage, all of which were kept locked and contained his personal items. The house was provided to Ms Waitoa fully furnished.
Ms Waitoa says Mr Mita stayed at the property on only two occasions: The first was on the weekend when Ms Waitoa moved in when Mr Mita stayed two nights. The second was the following weekend when Mr Mita visited to have Ms Waitoa sign their House Sharing Agreement regarding the tenancy. Ms Waitoa stated that Mr Mita visited on one other occasion but did not stay the night.
Mr Mita claimed he possibly stayed on another two or three occasions, but he was unable to provide any details.
Ms Waitoa stated that the two bedrooms that Mr Mita used for his belongings were down a hallway that separated them and the garage from the rest of the house.
Mr Mita said that when he visited he paid the courtesy of calling ahead and giving as much notice as possible. Ms Waitoa stated that because Mr Mita is family, she didn’t require him to give any notice.
Ms Waitoa stated that she alone paid the wifi bill, and the power bill. Mr Mita stated there was a difficulty due to the power provider changing. Although Mr Mita did not agree that he didn’t contribute to the power bill, he was not able to provide any information to indicate that he did contribute. Ms Waitoa stated that she never expected Mr Mita to make a contribution to either bill because he was not living there.
Ms Waitoa accepted the two bedrooms at the end of house that Mr Mita kept his belongings in, were available to be used by Mr Mita to sleep in if he wished to visit. This could have been a possibility whether the agreement was one of tenant-landlord, or one of flatmates; it is not in itself determinative of the nature of the agreement.
The family connection between Mr Mita and Ms Waitoa, the fact that Mr Mita kept belongings at the house he furnished, and the fact that there was a bedroom available for him to use if he had had the need are all factors I have considered in favour of Mr Mita using the house as a place of residence.
However the test of whether the agreement is exempted from the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is specific and requires Mr Mita to have used the premises principally as a place of residence. I find that Mr Mita stayed at the premises only on two occasions, for a total of three nights over a period of almost six months. I do not find this meets the test of “principally as a place of residence.”
Because of this I find that Ms Waitoa’s tenancy of the said premises is not excluded from the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The parties will be contacted by Tenancy Services regarding the time and place of the next hearing for this matter.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4743949 — Boarding House at 9B Kingsley Place, Mount Maunganui, Mount Maunganui

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4743949 — Boarding House at 9B Kingsley Place, Mount Maunganui, Mount Maunganui

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