What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4760997?

The tribunal order states: By declaration, the agreement between Sreeraj Mavila and Rachael Mario in

How much money was awarded in case 4760997?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4760997?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4760997?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9920070-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4760997?

The tribunal order states: By declaration, the agreement between Sreeraj Mavila and Rachael Mario in

How much money was awarded in case 4760997?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4760997?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4760997?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9920070-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

103E St Lukes Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4760997 — 14-day notice

Order

By declaration, the agreement between Sreeraj Mavila and Rachael Mario in relation to the premises at 103E St Lukes Road, Sandringham, Auckland is not a residential tenancy and is therefore not subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this application.
The Applicant will need to pursue the matter before the Disputes Tribunal should he wish to do so.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing by remote teleconference. There was no attendance by the landlord.
A preliminary question arises in this case, namely, whether or not the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim, by virtue of s 5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental and must be decided before the Tribunal can go on to make any other findings in a case. Put simply, if there is no jurisdiction, then I cannot proceed to hear the case.
Ms Mario is recorded as the head tenant. She is also the owner of the premises. This was confirmed by a written flat/house sharing Agreement dated 11 July 2023.
The applicant says that he resided there with two other flatmates. While they all had their own bedrooms, they shared kitchen and bathroom facilities. The weekly rent covered all expenses. The applicant says he heard about the flat through a friend of his. He contacted the owner and one week later moved in. He did not sign a tenancy agreement and was only required to provide 14 days’ notice to move out. No bond was paid. He also understood at the time that he was moving into the premises as a flatmate and not a tenant.
The applicant now seeks to recover a portion of the rent which he says was overpaid to the head tenant.
If the parties are in a flatting situation then I do not have jurisdiction. The issue that I must determine is whether the relationship was a flat sharing agreement of premises shared with the applicant. If so, then the exclusion in s 5(1)(n) will apply and the RTA will not apply.
The word “flatmate” does not in itself define the nature of the legal relationship between a flatmate and a landlord. The word is no more than a convenient label reflecting a functional reality; and it remains necessary to ascertain the legal nature of the relationship on the basis of the evidence.
A useful analysis of the term “flatmates” is found in the District Court decision of Musson v Dobrisek DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006- 032-36, 5 May 2006 where the landlord considered himself to be the “head tenant” and that he rented the other rooms to others whom he considered to be “flatmates”.
On the issue of whether the legal relationship between a head tenant and the other occupants were flatmates of the head tenant, Judge Broadmore stated (at [22]): “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.”
Some of the factors to take into account when determining the issue include: a. The person to whom the other tenants pay the rent, in this case, the landlord or the owner; b. The understanding that exists between the parties; c. When each tenant occupied the premises and on whose authority.
I find that the evidence establishes clearly that this was a shared flatting situation. The relationship was not that of landlord and tenant, rather flatmates. The parties have each had occupation of their own bedrooms of a house, sharing facilities in the usual way of flatmates.
The arrangement was for the parties to live co-operatively as flatmates and the parties sharing common living areas. I am satisfied that the living arrangement was a flatting type agreement and excluded from the terms of the RTA. The exception to the RTA under section 5(1)(n) applies.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim.

Order

By declaration, the agreement between Sreeraj Mavila and Rachael Mario in relation to the premises at 103E St Lukes Road, Sandringham, Auckland is not a residential tenancy and is therefore not subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this application.
The Applicant will need to pursue the matter before the Disputes Tribunal should he wish to do so.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing by remote teleconference. There was no attendance by the landlord.
A preliminary question arises in this case, namely, whether or not the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim, by virtue of s 5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental and must be decided before the Tribunal can go on to make any other findings in a case. Put simply, if there is no jurisdiction, then I cannot proceed to hear the case.
Ms Mario is recorded as the head tenant. She is also the owner of the premises. This was confirmed by a written flat/house sharing Agreement dated 11 July 2023.
The applicant says that he resided there with two other flatmates. While they all had their own bedrooms, they shared kitchen and bathroom facilities. The weekly rent covered all expenses. The applicant says he heard about the flat through a friend of his. He contacted the owner and one week later moved in. He did not sign a tenancy agreement and was only required to provide 14 days’ notice to move out. No bond was paid. He also understood at the time that he was moving into the premises as a flatmate and not a tenant.
The applicant now seeks to recover a portion of the rent which he says was overpaid to the head tenant.
If the parties are in a flatting situation then I do not have jurisdiction. The issue that I must determine is whether the relationship was a flat sharing agreement of premises shared with the applicant. If so, then the exclusion in s 5(1)(n) will apply and the RTA will not apply.
The word “flatmate” does not in itself define the nature of the legal relationship between a flatmate and a landlord. The word is no more than a convenient label reflecting a functional reality; and it remains necessary to ascertain the legal nature of the relationship on the basis of the evidence.
A useful analysis of the term “flatmates” is found in the District Court decision of Musson v Dobrisek DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006- 032-36, 5 May 2006 where the landlord considered himself to be the “head tenant” and that he rented the other rooms to others whom he considered to be “flatmates”.
On the issue of whether the legal relationship between a head tenant and the other occupants were flatmates of the head tenant, Judge Broadmore stated (at [22]): “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.”
Some of the factors to take into account when determining the issue include: a. The person to whom the other tenants pay the rent, in this case, the landlord or the owner; b. The understanding that exists between the parties; c. When each tenant occupied the premises and on whose authority.
I find that the evidence establishes clearly that this was a shared flatting situation. The relationship was not that of landlord and tenant, rather flatmates. The parties have each had occupation of their own bedrooms of a house, sharing facilities in the usual way of flatmates.
The arrangement was for the parties to live co-operatively as flatmates and the parties sharing common living areas. I am satisfied that the living arrangement was a flatting type agreement and excluded from the terms of the RTA. The exception to the RTA under section 5(1)(n) applies.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4760997 — 14-day notice at 103E St Lukes Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4760997 — 14-day notice at 103E St Lukes Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025

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