What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4871907?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4871907?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4871907?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4871907?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10422750-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4871907?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4871907?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4871907?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4871907?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10422750-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat C, 15 Selby Street, Pokeno, Pokeno 2402 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4871907 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

This hearing took place by teleconference. The applicant attended the hearing. The respondent was called on the number provided but the calls went to answerphone. The file records that notice of the hearing was sent to both parties. The hearing proceeded in the absence of the respondent.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The applicant claimed termination and rent arrears.

The applicant advised that the contract was for the provision of vehicle storage and a workshop.

The applicant provided a copy of a Deed of Lease in the Auckland District Law Society form entered into between the parties.

The agreement entered into between the parties was in the form of a commercial lease contract. The contract states at clause 13 of the First Schedule “Business use: Workshop and vehicle storage.”

The applicant stated today that she rented out a warehouse to the respondent for vehicle storage and workshop.

The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine disputes between landlords and tenants in tenancies for residential purposes. See sections 4 and 77(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Section 5 (1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that the Act shall not apply where the premises are commercial premises.

Having considered the evidence I find that the premises rented to the respondent were commercial premises subject to a commercial lease.

Therefore, I find that the Act does not apply, and the claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant is seeking suppression of identifying details in any publication of this order. If a party has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. Section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. In this case the applicant has not been successful, therefore, the application for suppression is declined.