What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4854693?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 4854693?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4854693?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4854693?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10327343-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4854693?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 4854693?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4854693?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4854693?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10327343-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

16A Woodbine Avenue, Greenlane, Auckland 1051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4854693 — Boarding House

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by teleconference. The applicant was supported by his mother who was present for part of the hearing.

The applicant has applied for a bond refund.

The respondent claims that the Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear this matter as the applicant was a boarder in his home.

The respondent further claims that even if this is a tenancy it is excluded by section 5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) as the premises are jointly owned by himself and his partner and they live at the premises.

The tenant stated that he answered a Trade Me advertisement for flatmates wanted.

The parties entered into an agreement headed “Boarder Agreement”. The preamble states “Boarder agreements between landlord and boarders are not covered under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.”

The premises have four bedrooms. The owners lived in the premises and there were three “boarders”.

The “boarders” have their own rooms and share the rest of the house with the owners.

The applicant furnished his room and bought his own food.

The owners provided kitchenware, appliances, washing machine and furnishing for the shared area.

All occupants shared the cost of utilities.

As the total intended occupants are less than six this is not a boarding house. See section 66B RTA.

The applicant stated that he believed he was a flatmate as he had to buy his own food and contribute to the cost of utilities. The respondent stated that he had taken advice and because they were the owners believed the applicant was a boarder and therefore had used a boarder agreement.

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies to landlords and tenants in a residential tenancy. See section 77(1) RTA. The applicant considers this to be a flatmate situation and the respondent considers it to be a boarding situation. Neither of these relationships fall within the jurisdiction of the RTA, therefore, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this matter.

Furthermore, even if the parties were in a landlord/tenant relationship, as the premises continue to be used principally as a place of residence by the owners this situation comes under the exclusion of section 5(1)(n) of the RTA.

For the above reasons the Tribunal finds that there is no jurisdiction to determine this application and the claim is dismissed.

It is noted that the Boarder Agreement states at paragraph 16 “In case of any disputes arising from this agreement, both parties agree to submit the dispute to the Disputes Tribunal for resolution.” Either party may choose to file a claim in the Disputes Tribunal if they are unable to resolve matters by agreement between themselves.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by teleconference. The applicant was supported by his mother who was present for part of the hearing.

The applicant has applied for a bond refund.

The respondent claims that the Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear this matter as the applicant was a boarder in his home.

The tenant stated that he answered a Trade Me advertisement for flatmates wanted.

The premises have four bedrooms. The owners lived in the premises and there were three “boarders”.

The “boarders” have their own rooms and share the rest of the house with the owners.

The applicant furnished his room and bought his own food.

The owners provided kitchenware, appliances, washing machine and furnishing for the shared area.

All occupants shared the cost of utilities.

As the total intended occupants are less than six this is not a boarding house. See section 66B RTA.

For the above reasons the Tribunal finds that there is no jurisdiction to determine this application and the claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4854693 — Boarding House at 16A Woodbine Avenue, Greenlane, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4854693 — Boarding House at 16A Woodbine Avenue, Greenlane, Auckland 1051

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