What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4959754?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4959754?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4959754?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4959754?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10688524-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4959754?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4959754?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4959754?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4959754?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10688524-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 6 Waikaukau Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4959754 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Gary Philip Eldershaw must immediately pay Raymond Philip Leslie $27.00 for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied to have the notice to terminate the lease declared unlawful and set aside.
The landlord made a cross application requesting the Tribunal make a declaration that the lease is a commercial lease for a commercial property and the nature of the relationship is not and has never been that of a residential tenancy. Background
The tenant confirmed he and his family had sub leased the property from three other persons that had originally held the lease to store and repair their boats.
The tenant said once those three persons moved on, for various reasons, the tenant and his family remained as occupants of unit 5. Further, they say the rent increase notice they received from the landlord in 2018 (addressed to the tenant) proves the landlord intended this to be a residential tenancy.
The tenant says the notice to terminate the lease is unlawful as it does not meet the statutory requirements for notices ending tenancies set out in the Residential tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and the landlord should be stopped from enforcing that notice.
The tenant says he installed a shower and toilet in the unit as there were no such facilities in it. He did so without getting the landlord’s consent.
The landlord confirmed he leased unit 5 to the three persons that the tenant sub leased the premise from and that he was aware the tenant had taken over the lease once the others no longer wanted to lease the premise. He said he was not aware the tenant had installed shower and toilet facilities into unit 5 and did not consent to the tenant doing that.
The landlord provided evidence that proves: a. The property that unit 5 sits on is zoned as industrial and warehousing in a suburban area; b. The rates for the property are set at a commercial rate as the 5 or 6 units sitting on the property are all zones for commercial use only; c. The premise is a boat shed, designed solely for the purpose of storing and restoring/repairing boats of up to 45 feet long; d. The landlord cannot lawfully rent any of the units out for the purpose of persons living there under a residential tenancy agreement; and e. The landlord never agreed to the tenant and his family residing at the premise nor did he ever indicate by words or acts that he intended the relationship with the tenant to be one of a residential tenancy. The law
Section 4 of the RTA reads: “This Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.”
The premises at Unit/Flat 5, 6 Waikaukau Road, Glen Eden, Auckland (the premises) were used by the tenant primarily for the purposes of storing and working on his boat. At some point, he and his family began to live at the premise without the landlord’s consent. The premises did not contain the facilities that would be required if the premises were to be used for residential purposes. It is clear from the evidence the property and all the units are zoned for commercial use only.
As such the lease is not covered by the Act, and even though the tenant and his family have been unlawfully living at the premise as well as storing and repairing their boat at the premises, this does not mean the tenant and his family are occupying the premise for residential purposes.
“I am satisfied the landlord and tenant have ended up in an undocumented commercial lease that neither of them entered formally and as such there are no verbally agreed or implied terms and conditions, other than the rent of $600.00 per week.
The landlord has successfully proven the relationship he has with the tenant is in fact a commercial lease to which the Property Law Act 2007 applies.
The Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction over commercial disputes.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
As the landlord has been wholly successful in his application, I must reimburse the filing fee of $27.00.

Order

The application is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Gary Philip Eldershaw must immediately pay Raymond Philip Leslie $27.00 for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied to have the notice to terminate the lease declared unlawful and set aside.
The landlord made a cross application requesting the Tribunal make a declaration that the lease is a commercial lease for a commercial property and the nature of the relationship is not and has never been that of a residential tenancy. Background
The tenant confirmed he and his family had sub leased the property from three other persons that had originally held the lease to store and repair their boats.
The tenant said once those three persons moved on, for various reasons, the tenant and his family remained as occupants of unit 5. Further, they say the rent increase notice they received from the landlord in 2018 (addressed to the tenant) proves the landlord intended this to be a residential tenancy.
The tenant says the notice to terminate the lease is unlawful as it does not meet the statutory requirements for notices ending tenancies set out in the Residential tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and the landlord should be stopped from enforcing that notice.
The tenant says he installed a shower and toilet in the unit as there were no such facilities in it. He did so without getting the landlord’s consent.
The landlord confirmed he leased unit 5 to the three persons that the tenant sub leased the premise from and that he was aware the tenant had taken over the lease once the others no longer wanted to lease the premise. He said he was not aware the tenant had installed shower and toilet facilities into unit 5 and did not consent to the tenant doing that.
The landlord provided evidence that proves: a. The property that unit 5 sits on is zoned as industrial and warehousing in a suburban area; b. The rates for the property are set at a commercial rate as the 5 or 6 units sitting on the property are all zones for commercial use only; c. The premise is a boat shed, designed solely for the purpose of storing and restoring/repairing boats of up to 45 feet long; d. The landlord cannot lawfully rent any of the units out for the purpose of persons living there under a residential tenancy agreement; and e. The landlord never agreed to the tenant and his family residing at the premise nor did he ever indicate by words or acts that he intended the relationship with the tenant to be one of a residential tenancy. The law
Section 4 of the RTA reads: “This Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.”
The premises at Unit/Flat 5, 6 Waikaukau Road, Glen Eden, Auckland (the premises) were used by the tenant primarily for the purposes of storing and working on his boat. At some point, he and his family began to live at the premise without the landlord’s consent. The premises did not contain the facilities that would be required if the premises were to be used for residential purposes. It is clear from the evidence the property and all the units are zoned for commercial use only.
As such the lease is not covered by the Act, and even though the tenant and his family have been unlawfully living at the premise as well as storing and repairing their boat at the premises, this does not mean the tenant and his family are occupying the premise for residential purposes.
“I am satisfied the landlord and tenant have ended up in an undocumented commercial lease that neither of them entered formally and as such there are no verbally agreed or implied terms and conditions, other than the rent of $600.00 per week.
The landlord has successfully proven the relationship he has with the tenant is in fact a commercial lease to which the Property Law Act 2007 applies.
The Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction over commercial disputes.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
As the landlord has been wholly successful in his application, I must reimburse the filing fee of $27.00.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4959754 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 5, 6 Waikaukau Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4959754 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 5, 6 Waikaukau Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions