What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4872980?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4872980?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4872980?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4872980?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10895891-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4872980?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4872980?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4872980?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4872980?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10895891-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 540 Armagh Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4872980 — Smoke alarms

Order

The application is struck out for lack of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Ms Lara Pierotti attended the hearing for the applicants. Mr Punyadeep and Ms Botica-Veevers attended for the respondent. The hearing was held by way of teleconference.
The applicants are sisters and they, and a friend, were on a working holiday in New Zealand for approximately three months. They reside in Scotland. The respondents manage several properties including this property all of which are generally let for holiday or temporary purposes. Ms Periotti said that she found this property(unit 5) advertised on Air BnB and, before coming to New Zealand, she and her sister, entered into an agreement with the respondents to let the property from 11 March 2024 to 1 May 2024 for a sum $7205.00, which the applicants paid by way of two instalments. No bond was paid or requested.
The applicants moved out of unit 5 on 10 April after a small fire occurred in the bathroom which was apparently caused by a faulty bathroom heater. They moved into a neighbouring unit (unit 6) which is also managed by the respondents. It appears that the stay in unit 6 was extended and the applicants moved out of that unit on 1 June and returned to Scotland soon after.
The applicants applied for compensation of $10,000 for failure by the respondent to comply with the requirements in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), in particular: failure to provide healthy homes, insulation and insurance statements at the commencement of the occupancy; failure to provide a smoke alarm near the upstairs bathroom; and for providing premises with a ‘non- compliant’ bathroom heater.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims?

The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to hearing and determining disputes between landlords and tenants (and between landlords and a guarantor of a tenant’s obligations) provided the dispute is in relation to a tenancy that comes within the Act.
The starting point in answering the question of whether the tenancy comes within the Act is section 4 which provides that the Act applies to all tenancies of residential premises unless specifically excluded.
Section 5 of the Act contains a list of occupancies which are excluded from the Act. The relevant ones here are section 5(1)(k) and (m).
Section 5(1)(k) excludes occupancies that are: “(i) intended to provide temporary or transient accommodation (such as that provided by hotels and motels), being accommodation that is ordinarily provided for periods of less than 28 days at a time; and (ii) are subject to an agreement that has been entered into for the purpose of providing temporary or transient accommodation that continues to be provided under the agreement.”
Section 5(1)(m) excludes occupancies “where the premises are let for the tenant’s holiday purposes.”
I am satisfied that the premises here come within the section 5(1)(m) exception and probably also the section 5(1)(k) exception.
There is no doubt that the purpose of the occupation of unit 5 (and unit 6) was for the applicants’ holiday purposes, despite the fact that Ms Periotti was working at a Christchurch bar for the time of her stay.
Ms Periotti relies on a letter dated 4 March 2024 addressed “to whom it may concern” and signed by Mr Punyadeep, in support of her claim that the occupancy is one which comes within the Act. In that letter Mr Punyadeep states that he is the landlord of Ms Periotti and that she will reside in unit 5 from 11 March 2024 paying $3,307.00 per month. However, I accept Mr Punydeep’s evidence (which was not disputed by Ms Periotti) that this was written on Ms Periotti’s request to enable her to open a bank account in New Zealand. Moreover, what the parties call the occupancy is not determinative; it is the substance of the arrangement that is.
This is sufficient to dismiss the applications for lack of jurisdiction. However, for completeness I record that I consider that the occupancy also likely falls within the section 5(1)(k) exception.
The respondents said that the premises are advertised for rent on Air BnB and other internet holiday accommodation booking sites (such as Booking.com, and Book a Bach), and 99% of the bookings are for stays of less than 28 days. Thus, I am satisfied that the accommodation is intended to be temporary or transient and the agreement between the parties was for temporary/short term accommodation only.
I therefore find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the claims and the application is struck out.

Order

The application is struck out for lack of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Ms Lara Pierotti attended the hearing for the applicants. Mr Punyadeep and Ms Botica-Veevers attended for the respondent. The hearing was held by way of teleconference.
The applicants are sisters and they, and a friend, were on a working holiday in New Zealand for approximately three months. They reside in Scotland. The respondents manage several properties including this property all of which are generally let for holiday or temporary purposes. Ms Periotti said that she found this property(unit 5) advertised on Air BnB and, before coming to New Zealand, she and her sister, entered into an agreement with the respondents to let the property from 11 March 2024 to 1 May 2024 for a sum $7205.00, which the applicants paid by way of two instalments. No bond was paid or requested.
The applicants moved out of unit 5 on 10 April after a small fire occurred in the bathroom which was apparently caused by a faulty bathroom heater. They moved into a neighbouring unit (unit 6) which is also managed by the respondents. It appears that the stay in unit 6 was extended and the applicants moved out of that unit on 1 June and returned to Scotland soon after.
The applicants applied for compensation of $10,000 for failure by the respondent to comply with the requirements in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), in particular: failure to provide healthy homes, insulation and insurance statements at the commencement of the occupancy; failure to provide a smoke alarm near the upstairs bathroom; and for providing premises with a ‘non- compliant’ bathroom heater.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims?

The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to hearing and determining disputes between landlords and tenants (and between landlords and a guarantor of a tenant’s obligations) provided the dispute is in relation to a tenancy that comes within the Act.
The starting point in answering the question of whether the tenancy comes within the Act is section 4 which provides that the Act applies to all tenancies of residential premises unless specifically excluded.
Section 5 of the Act contains a list of occupancies which are excluded from the Act. The relevant ones here are section 5(1)(k) and (m).
Section 5(1)(k) excludes occupancies that are: “(i) intended to provide temporary or transient accommodation (such as that provided by hotels and motels), being accommodation that is ordinarily provided for periods of less than 28 days at a time; and (ii) are subject to an agreement that has been entered into for the purpose of providing temporary or transient accommodation that continues to be provided under the agreement.”
Section 5(1)(m) excludes occupancies “where the premises are let for the tenant’s holiday purposes.”
I am satisfied that the premises here come within the section 5(1)(m) exception and probably also the section 5(1)(k) exception.
There is no doubt that the purpose of the occupation of unit 5 (and unit 6) was for the applicants’ holiday purposes, despite the fact that Ms Periotti was working at a Christchurch bar for the time of her stay.
Ms Periotti relies on a letter dated 4 March 2024 addressed “to whom it may concern” and signed by Mr Punyadeep, in support of her claim that the occupancy is one which comes within the Act. In that letter Mr Punyadeep states that he is the landlord of Ms Periotti and that she will reside in unit 5 from 11 March 2024 paying $3,307.00 per month. However, I accept Mr Punydeep’s evidence (which was not disputed by Ms Periotti) that this was written on Ms Periotti’s request to enable her to open a bank account in New Zealand. Moreover, what the parties call the occupancy is not determinative; it is the substance of the arrangement that is.
This is sufficient to dismiss the applications for lack of jurisdiction. However, for completeness I record that I consider that the occupancy also likely falls within the section 5(1)(k) exception.
The respondents said that the premises are advertised for rent on Air BnB and other internet holiday accommodation booking sites (such as Booking.com, and Book a Bach), and 99% of the bookings are for stays of less than 28 days. Thus, I am satisfied that the accommodation is intended to be temporary or transient and the agreement between the parties was for temporary/short term accommodation only.
I therefore find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the claims and the application is struck out.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4872980 — Smoke alarms at Unit/Flat 5, 540 Armagh Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4872980 — Smoke alarms at Unit/Flat 5, 540 Armagh Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions