What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4947733?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed, because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to

How much money was awarded in case 4947733?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4947733?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4947733?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11027075-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4947733?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed, because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to

How much money was awarded in case 4947733?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4947733?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4947733?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11027075-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10 Taylor Road, Mangere Bridge, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4947733 — Cleanliness

Order

The application is dismissed, because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute between flatmates.

Reasons

The Tenancy Tribunal has received an application from Mahmudul Hasan against Steve Smith. The claim relates to a refund of Mr Hasan’s bond, retained to cover cleaning at the end of his tenancy. However there is a preliminary matter I must consider, that is, whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider this claim given the tenancy appeared to be a flatting situation.
The background in this case is not involved, and can be summarised succinctly as follows.
The premises are rented by Ms Steve Smith from Mr Matthew Poole. I am not sure of the precise date that tenancy started, but it would have been sometime in or around 2020.
Mr Smith lives in the premises and advised me at the hearing today that over time he has had some 16 flatmates through the premises.
In mid 2023 Mr Smith advertised in TradeMe for a flatmate. A copy of the advertisement has been provided, and clearly it was an advertisement for a flatmate. Ultimately Mr Hasan was successful with his application for the room and moved into the premises (according to the Tribunal application form) in November 2023, and later moved out in July 2024.
A dispute has arisen as to cleaning costs that Mr Smith retained from Mr Hasan’s bond, and Mr Hasan filed this claim in the Tenancy Tribunal to get that money back.
An initial hearing was convened before adjudicator Ms Bradley. However, that hearing was adjourned when the adjudicator determined that Mr Hasan’s English was not sufficient to proceed without an interpreter being present. The hearing was adjourned, and scheduled today. I conducted the hearing by telephone. Assisting me in the hearing was a Bengali interpreter.
At the hearing Mr Smith advised that he considered this was a flatting situation, and following discussion Mr Hasan agreed that was the case. Mr Hasan confirmed that Mr Smith had been living in the dwelling for the duration of the time he was there. Everything points to this being a flatting situation, not a landlord / tenant relationship in a tenancy.
As I explained to the parties, the Tenancy Tribunal cannot consider disputes between flatmates, only the Disputes Tribunal can do that. While I did not set out the strict legal reasons for this at the hearing this morning, as I said I would do, I will explain the legal reasons for this in my written decision.
The Tenancy Tribunal can only consider disputes in relation to residential tenancies which fall within the RTA. Section 77 of the RTA relates to the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal, and confirms that: 77 Jurisdiction of Tribunal (1) The Tribunal has, subject to the Limitation Act 2010, jurisdiction to determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that— (a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time.
There is a statutory presumption in section 4 that the RTA will apply to all residential tenancies, unless specifically excluded. That provision confirms that: This Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.
Section 5 of the RTA sets out a range of situations when the tenancy will be ‘excluded’ from the RTA, and an exclusion applies in Mr Hasan’s case. That is the exclusion found in section 5(1)(n), which confirms that the Act will not apply: where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family:
The premises are not a boarding house, so the RTA is excluded.
While the Tenancy Tribunal would not have jurisdiction to consider the dispute, if Mr Hasan wishes to pursue the dispute further, it is the Disputes Tribunal he would need to file a new application with.
For the above reasons, this application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Order

The application is dismissed, because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute between flatmates.

Reasons

The Tenancy Tribunal has received an application from Mahmudul Hasan against Steve Smith. The claim relates to a refund of Mr Hasan’s bond, retained to cover cleaning at the end of his tenancy. However there is a preliminary matter I must consider, that is, whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider this claim given the tenancy appeared to be a flatting situation.
The background in this case is not involved, and can be summarised succinctly as follows.
The premises are rented by Ms Steve Smith from Mr Matthew Poole. I am not sure of the precise date that tenancy started, but it would have been sometime in or around 2020.
Mr Smith lives in the premises and advised me at the hearing today that over time he has had some 16 flatmates through the premises.
In mid 2023 Mr Smith advertised in TradeMe for a flatmate. A copy of the advertisement has been provided, and clearly it was an advertisement for a flatmate. Ultimately Mr Hasan was successful with his application for the room and moved into the premises (according to the Tribunal application form) in November 2023, and later moved out in July 2024.
A dispute has arisen as to cleaning costs that Mr Smith retained from Mr Hasan’s bond, and Mr Hasan filed this claim in the Tenancy Tribunal to get that money back.
An initial hearing was convened before adjudicator Ms Bradley. However, that hearing was adjourned when the adjudicator determined that Mr Hasan’s English was not sufficient to proceed without an interpreter being present. The hearing was adjourned, and scheduled today. I conducted the hearing by telephone. Assisting me in the hearing was a Bengali interpreter.
At the hearing Mr Smith advised that he considered this was a flatting situation, and following discussion Mr Hasan agreed that was the case. Mr Hasan confirmed that Mr Smith had been living in the dwelling for the duration of the time he was there. Everything points to this being a flatting situation, not a landlord / tenant relationship in a tenancy.
As I explained to the parties, the Tenancy Tribunal cannot consider disputes between flatmates, only the Disputes Tribunal can do that. While I did not set out the strict legal reasons for this at the hearing this morning, as I said I would do, I will explain the legal reasons for this in my written decision.
The Tenancy Tribunal can only consider disputes in relation to residential tenancies which fall within the RTA. Section 77 of the RTA relates to the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal, and confirms that: 77 Jurisdiction of Tribunal (1) The Tribunal has, subject to the Limitation Act 2010, jurisdiction to determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that— (a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time.
There is a statutory presumption in section 4 that the RTA will apply to all residential tenancies, unless specifically excluded. That provision confirms that: This Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.
Section 5 of the RTA sets out a range of situations when the tenancy will be ‘excluded’ from the RTA, and an exclusion applies in Mr Hasan’s case. That is the exclusion found in section 5(1)(n), which confirms that the Act will not apply: where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family:
The premises are not a boarding house, so the RTA is excluded.
While the Tenancy Tribunal would not have jurisdiction to consider the dispute, if Mr Hasan wishes to pursue the dispute further, it is the Disputes Tribunal he would need to file a new application with.
For the above reasons, this application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4947733 — Cleanliness at 10 Taylor Road, Mangere Bridge, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4947733 — Cleanliness at 10 Taylor Road, Mangere Bridge, Auckland 2022

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