What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4866382?

The tribunal order states: The applications are struck out. The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction

How much money was awarded in case 4866382?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4866382?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4866382?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10861692-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4866382?

The tribunal order states: The applications are struck out. The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction

How much money was awarded in case 4866382?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4866382?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4866382?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10861692-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Te Kahu Street, Haruru 0204 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4866382 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The applications are struck out. The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the applications.

Reasons

I set out the background to the applications in the adjournment order dated 4 July 2024.
I also set out the relevant law in that order.
The second hearing took place in Kaikohe on 29 August 2024. Both parties participated in the hearing.
The jurisdictional issue to determine is whether the premises were residential or commercial.
Residential premises are premises that are used, or are intended to be used for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation for residential premises was lawful. 1 1 Section 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The premises at Unit 9 Te Kahu Street are zoned for, and intended for, commercial use. However, if Mr Lockett occupied the premises as a place of residence under an agreement with the landlord then the premises are residential (per the definition above) and the Tenancy Tribunal will have jurisdiction.
The critical question is not the zoning of the premises, but the actual use of the premises.
Mr Lockett said that: a. It was agreed and understood from the beginning that he would live in the unit. b. He lived in the unit, and not in his motorhome. c. During the tenancy he “made huge improvements within the shed over time to make it liveable”, such as adding a toilet and an “upstairs bedroom”. The landlord was aware of, and approved of, all these improvements.
Mr Robertson and Mr Hagen said that: a. It was agreed and understood from the beginning that the unit was just a storage shed / workshop. Mr Lockett was to use the unit for storage and to work on his vehicles. He could sleep and use the bathroom in his self- contained motorhome. b. Over time Mr Lockett ‘spread out’ into the unit. He had many belongings in the unit, but they did not concern themselves with what Mr Lockett was doing. c. There was never any intention, understanding, or agreement that Mr Lockett could reside in the unit.
In terms of the original understanding, the evidence available to me tends to support the landlord’s recollection that the premises were let as a storage unit / workshop only. In particular I note that: a. At the beginning of Mr Lockett’s occupancy, the premises had no power supply, no toilet, and no shower. b. On 29 June 2020 Mr Robertson sent an email to the Ministry of Social Development on behalf of Mr Lockett stating: I have been approached by Mr locket [sic] who is interested in renting one of my sheds at 9 Tekahu st Haruru falls. Mr locket wishes to park his motorhome inside my shed and live in it. The normal rent for this shed is 300 dollars a week. However as Mr locket wishes to park his motorhome inside the shed and live in it and not carry out any noisy or dirty industrial activities I have told Mr locket his rent will be $250 per week. Based on this information, Mr Lockett received assistance from the Ministry of Social Development
If Mr Lockett did begin sleeping in the unit and using it for residential purposes, there is nothing to show that the landlord knew about, or consented to, a change of use.
The fact that Mr Lockett was at the unit all the time is not inconsistent with the argument that the landlord only agreed to commercial use of the premises. The landlord understood that Mr Lockett was living in his motorhome. The motorhome was at the unit so that Mr Lockett could carry out work on it.
The addition of some facilities over time is also not inconsistent with the premises being commercial. Commercial premises often have a toilet and basic kitchen facilities. The area that Mr Lockett described as his bedroom is a mezzanine floor, which could be used for any purpose.
The presence of various household items such as appliances, furniture, and gym equipment is not, in this instance, a clear indicator that the premises were being used for residential purposes. The original agreement was that Mr Lockett could store his belongings in the unit.
It is not the case that Mr Robertson unlawfully rented commercial premises to Mr Lockett knowing, or turning a blind eye to the fact, that Mr Lockett was living there. Rather, Mr Lockett agreed to rent commercial premises for commercial purposes and, to the extent that he began to use them for residential purposes, he did so without the landlord’s knowledge or consent.
Therefore I find that: a. The premises are not residential premises for the purposes of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. b. The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute. It is not a dispute between a landlord and tenant. c. The applications are struck out.

Order

The applications are struck out. The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the applications.

Reasons

I set out the background to the applications in the adjournment order dated 4 July 2024.
I also set out the relevant law in that order.
The second hearing took place in Kaikohe on 29 August 2024. Both parties participated in the hearing.
The jurisdictional issue to determine is whether the premises were residential or commercial.
Residential premises are premises that are used, or are intended to be used for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation for residential premises was lawful. 1 1 Section 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The premises at Unit 9 Te Kahu Street are zoned for, and intended for, commercial use. However, if Mr Lockett occupied the premises as a place of residence under an agreement with the landlord then the premises are residential (per the definition above) and the Tenancy Tribunal will have jurisdiction.
The critical question is not the zoning of the premises, but the actual use of the premises.
Mr Lockett said that: a. It was agreed and understood from the beginning that he would live in the unit. b. He lived in the unit, and not in his motorhome. c. During the tenancy he “made huge improvements within the shed over time to make it liveable”, such as adding a toilet and an “upstairs bedroom”. The landlord was aware of, and approved of, all these improvements.
Mr Robertson and Mr Hagen said that: a. It was agreed and understood from the beginning that the unit was just a storage shed / workshop. Mr Lockett was to use the unit for storage and to work on his vehicles. He could sleep and use the bathroom in his self- contained motorhome. b. Over time Mr Lockett ‘spread out’ into the unit. He had many belongings in the unit, but they did not concern themselves with what Mr Lockett was doing. c. There was never any intention, understanding, or agreement that Mr Lockett could reside in the unit.
In terms of the original understanding, the evidence available to me tends to support the landlord’s recollection that the premises were let as a storage unit / workshop only. In particular I note that: a. At the beginning of Mr Lockett’s occupancy, the premises had no power supply, no toilet, and no shower. b. On 29 June 2020 Mr Robertson sent an email to the Ministry of Social Development on behalf of Mr Lockett stating: I have been approached by Mr locket [sic] who is interested in renting one of my sheds at 9 Tekahu st Haruru falls. Mr locket wishes to park his motorhome inside my shed and live in it. The normal rent for this shed is 300 dollars a week. However as Mr locket wishes to park his motorhome inside the shed and live in it and not carry out any noisy or dirty industrial activities I have told Mr locket his rent will be $250 per week. Based on this information, Mr Lockett received assistance from the Ministry of Social Development
If Mr Lockett did begin sleeping in the unit and using it for residential purposes, there is nothing to show that the landlord knew about, or consented to, a change of use.
The fact that Mr Lockett was at the unit all the time is not inconsistent with the argument that the landlord only agreed to commercial use of the premises. The landlord understood that Mr Lockett was living in his motorhome. The motorhome was at the unit so that Mr Lockett could carry out work on it.
The addition of some facilities over time is also not inconsistent with the premises being commercial. Commercial premises often have a toilet and basic kitchen facilities. The area that Mr Lockett described as his bedroom is a mezzanine floor, which could be used for any purpose.
The presence of various household items such as appliances, furniture, and gym equipment is not, in this instance, a clear indicator that the premises were being used for residential purposes. The original agreement was that Mr Lockett could store his belongings in the unit.
It is not the case that Mr Robertson unlawfully rented commercial premises to Mr Lockett knowing, or turning a blind eye to the fact, that Mr Lockett was living there. Rather, Mr Lockett agreed to rent commercial premises for commercial purposes and, to the extent that he began to use them for residential purposes, he did so without the landlord’s knowledge or consent.
Therefore I find that: a. The premises are not residential premises for the purposes of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. b. The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute. It is not a dispute between a landlord and tenant. c. The applications are struck out.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4866382 — Tenancy dispute at 9 Te Kahu Street, Haruru 0204

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4866382 — Tenancy dispute at 9 Te Kahu Street, Haruru 0204

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions