What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4919375?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4919375?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4919375?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4919375?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11038222-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4919375?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4919375?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4919375?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4919375?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11038222-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 Inlet Views, Bethlehem, Tauranga 3110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4919375 — Boarding House

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 9 October 2024.
Mrs Falloon claims she was a tenant and had a room-by-room tenancy agreement with the landlord, Mr Van Veen, which began on 17 April 2024 and ended on 6 June 2024. She has applied for a refund of the $400 bond she paid at the start of the arrangement. Mrs Falloon states that she was forced to leave without providing two weeks' notice due to Mr Van Veen’s verbally abusive behaviour.
According to Mrs Falloon, she found the room advertised on Facebook Marketplace and contacted Mr Van Veen about viewing it. Although she did not provide a copy of the original advertisement because it had been taken down, she says they agreed on a weekly rent of $200, which also covered utilities. On 11 April, Mr Van Veen sent her a text confirming that the room was hers if she wanted it and provided the door code. Mrs Falloon moved in on 17 April 2024 and paid the $400 bond. She also claims she shared common areas like the bathroom, kitchen, and living room with three to four other tenants. Mrs Falloon maintains that their agreement was verbal, and she did not sign a written tenancy agreement.
The landlord, Mr Van Veen, disputes Mrs Falloon’s account of the arrangement. He insists that it was not a tenancy but a flatmate arrangement, which he claims was advertised as such. Mr Van Veen states that the other occupants of the house were not tenants but rather "guests" or flatmates. He further disputes that Mrs Falloon paid a $400 bond, saying she only paid $1. Mr Van Veen claims that Mrs Falloon caused problems from the start, describing her behaviour as harassing and claiming she stalked him. He asserts that he asked her to leave because of these issues and cannot understand why she would pursue a claim in the Tenancy Tribunal, accusing her application of being based on lies.
In summary, the main points of disagreement between the two parties are whether the arrangement was a formal tenancy or a flatmate situation, the amount of the bond paid, and the reason for Mrs Falloon leaving the property. Mrs Falloon maintains that she had a verbal tenancy agreement and was mistreated by Mr Van Veen, while Mr Van Veen insists that no tenancy existed, and that Mrs Falloon’s behaviour led to her departure from the property. Findings
The key issue in this case is whether the arrangement between Mrs Falloon and Mr Van Veen falls under the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal, as defined by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The Tribunal has jurisdiction over residential tenancies, but it does not cover flatmate arrangements or boarding house tenancies unless they are specifically included in the Act.
Section 4 of the RTA states that the Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes, except in specific cases. Section 5(1)(n) further clarifies that the RTA does not apply if the premises, which are not considered a boarding house, continue to be used by the landlord or the owner as their principal place of residence during the tenancy, or by any member of their family. Importantly, the term "flatmate" is not defined in the RTA, nor is it directly addressed by the legislation.
The Tribunal must consider the "reality of the situation" and look at all relevant facts in determining whether the exception in section 5(1)(n) applies. In the case of Watson v Watson and Roo (Christchurch District Court, CIV-2010-009-2030), the District Court emphasised that the Tribunal should focus on the full set of facts rather than being distracted by the labels the parties assign to the arrangement. In this case, the core question is whether Mrs Falloon was a tenant under the RTA or if she and Mr Van Veen were flatmates, with all the implications that follow from either classification.
The evidence presented by both parties is contradictory. Mrs Falloon claims to have rented a room under a formal tenancy agreement, while Mr Van Veen maintains that she was a flatmate, a guest in his home, and not a tenant. There is no clear documentation, such as a written agreement, to support either version of events. While verbal agreements are valid under the RTA, proving the existence and terms of such agreements is inherently difficult without written documentation.
I am reminded that the onus is on the applicant to prove their claim on the balance of probabilities. In this case, Mrs Falloon, as the applicant, has failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet that burden. Given the lack of supporting evidence, it is challenging to determine with certainty whether this arrangement constitutes a tenancy or a flatmate situation. However, based on the informality of the arrangement described, the absence of a signed agreement, and the lack of clear intentions to adhere to the formalities of the RTA, it is likely that the exception in section 5(1)(n) of the RTA applies. This would mean that the RTA does not govern the situation between Mrs Falloon and Mr Van Veen, as the living arrangement may fall within the scope of a flatmate or guest arrangement.
Even if the Tribunal were to find that jurisdiction exists, there is still insufficient evidence to support Mrs Falloon’s claims. She asserts that she left due to Mr Van Veen’s verbal abuse and the potential for violence, which she claims justified her failure to provide proper notice. However, Mrs Falloon has not provided any convincing independent corroborating evidence of the alleged verbal abuse, such as witness statements, police reports, or communications with Mr Van Veen that would support her claims. Without such evidence, the Tribunal cannot rely on her unsubstantiated assertion to justify her actions.
In conclusion, Mrs Falloon has failed to prove that a tenancy existed, that a bond was paid, or that Mr Van Veen engaged in any abusive behaviour. Given the absence of documentary evidence and the lack of supporting details for her claims, the application is dismissed for lack of proof.

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 9 October 2024.
Mrs Falloon claims she was a tenant and had a room-by-room tenancy agreement with the landlord, Mr Van Veen, which began on 17 April 2024 and ended on 6 June 2024. She has applied for a refund of the $400 bond she paid at the start of the arrangement. Mrs Falloon states that she was forced to leave without providing two weeks' notice due to Mr Van Veen’s verbally abusive behaviour.
According to Mrs Falloon, she found the room advertised on Facebook Marketplace and contacted Mr Van Veen about viewing it. Although she did not provide a copy of the original advertisement because it had been taken down, she says they agreed on a weekly rent of $200, which also covered utilities. On 11 April, Mr Van Veen sent her a text confirming that the room was hers if she wanted it and provided the door code. Mrs Falloon moved in on 17 April 2024 and paid the $400 bond. She also claims she shared common areas like the bathroom, kitchen, and living room with three to four other tenants. Mrs Falloon maintains that their agreement was verbal, and she did not sign a written tenancy agreement.
The landlord, Mr Van Veen, disputes Mrs Falloon’s account of the arrangement. He insists that it was not a tenancy but a flatmate arrangement, which he claims was advertised as such. Mr Van Veen states that the other occupants of the house were not tenants but rather "guests" or flatmates. He further disputes that Mrs Falloon paid a $400 bond, saying she only paid $1. Mr Van Veen claims that Mrs Falloon caused problems from the start, describing her behaviour as harassing and claiming she stalked him. He asserts that he asked her to leave because of these issues and cannot understand why she would pursue a claim in the Tenancy Tribunal, accusing her application of being based on lies.
In summary, the main points of disagreement between the two parties are whether the arrangement was a formal tenancy or a flatmate situation, the amount of the bond paid, and the reason for Mrs Falloon leaving the property. Mrs Falloon maintains that she had a verbal tenancy agreement and was mistreated by Mr Van Veen, while Mr Van Veen insists that no tenancy existed, and that Mrs Falloon’s behaviour led to her departure from the property. Findings
The key issue in this case is whether the arrangement between Mrs Falloon and Mr Van Veen falls under the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal, as defined by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The Tribunal has jurisdiction over residential tenancies, but it does not cover flatmate arrangements or boarding house tenancies unless they are specifically included in the Act.
Section 4 of the RTA states that the Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes, except in specific cases. Section 5(1)(n) further clarifies that the RTA does not apply if the premises, which are not considered a boarding house, continue to be used by the landlord or the owner as their principal place of residence during the tenancy, or by any member of their family. Importantly, the term "flatmate" is not defined in the RTA, nor is it directly addressed by the legislation.
The Tribunal must consider the "reality of the situation" and look at all relevant facts in determining whether the exception in section 5(1)(n) applies. In the case of Watson v Watson and Roo (Christchurch District Court, CIV-2010-009-2030), the District Court emphasised that the Tribunal should focus on the full set of facts rather than being distracted by the labels the parties assign to the arrangement. In this case, the core question is whether Mrs Falloon was a tenant under the RTA or if she and Mr Van Veen were flatmates, with all the implications that follow from either classification.
The evidence presented by both parties is contradictory. Mrs Falloon claims to have rented a room under a formal tenancy agreement, while Mr Van Veen maintains that she was a flatmate, a guest in his home, and not a tenant. There is no clear documentation, such as a written agreement, to support either version of events. While verbal agreements are valid under the RTA, proving the existence and terms of such agreements is inherently difficult without written documentation.
I am reminded that the onus is on the applicant to prove their claim on the balance of probabilities. In this case, Mrs Falloon, as the applicant, has failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet that burden. Given the lack of supporting evidence, it is challenging to determine with certainty whether this arrangement constitutes a tenancy or a flatmate situation. However, based on the informality of the arrangement described, the absence of a signed agreement, and the lack of clear intentions to adhere to the formalities of the RTA, it is likely that the exception in section 5(1)(n) of the RTA applies. This would mean that the RTA does not govern the situation between Mrs Falloon and Mr Van Veen, as the living arrangement may fall within the scope of a flatmate or guest arrangement.
Even if the Tribunal were to find that jurisdiction exists, there is still insufficient evidence to support Mrs Falloon’s claims. She asserts that she left due to Mr Van Veen’s verbal abuse and the potential for violence, which she claims justified her failure to provide proper notice. However, Mrs Falloon has not provided any convincing independent corroborating evidence of the alleged verbal abuse, such as witness statements, police reports, or communications with Mr Van Veen that would support her claims. Without such evidence, the Tribunal cannot rely on her unsubstantiated assertion to justify her actions.
In conclusion, Mrs Falloon has failed to prove that a tenancy existed, that a bond was paid, or that Mr Van Veen engaged in any abusive behaviour. Given the absence of documentary evidence and the lack of supporting details for her claims, the application is dismissed for lack of proof.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4919375 — Boarding House at 24 Inlet Views, Bethlehem, Tauranga 3110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4919375 — Boarding House at 24 Inlet Views, Bethlehem, Tauranga 3110

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