What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4960254?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4960254?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4960254?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4960254?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10857127-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4960254?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4960254?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4960254?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4960254?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10857127-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Swinton Close, Remuera, Auckland 1050 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4960254 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.
By declaration, the agreement between Lukasz Nikodem Dobranski and David de Cleene in relation to the premises at 8 Swinton Close, Remuera, Auckland is not a residential tenancy and is therefore not subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
A preliminary question arises in this case of whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim.
Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental and must be decided before the Tribunal can go on to make any other findings. Put simply, if there is no jurisdiction, then I cannot proceed to hear the case.
The tenant says that he responded to an advertisement on TradeMe, specifically for a flatmate wanted.
The premises consist of three bedrooms. The tenant says he had use of all shared facilities and his bedroom.
The named landlord was the head tenant. The head tenant had a tenancy agreement with the owner. The tenant paid his rent to the head tenant. The head tenant had other flatmates living in the premises as well. The head tenant was responsible for the premises.
Both parties confirmed and agreed that the understanding was that the tenant was moving into the premises as a flatmate.
Initially when the tenant moved into the premises, there was a verbal agreement. An unsigned Flat/House – Sharing Agreement has been provided. The landlord advised that he gave this to the tenant later, but that it reflected the verbal arrangement for the tenant, and for other flatmates.
There are several previous cases that have come before the Tenancy Tribunal and the Courts where the question of whether an agreement is a flat sharing agreement or not has been considered.
The word “flatmate” does not in itself define the nature of the legal relationship between a flatmate and a landlord. The word is no more than a convenient label reflecting a functional reality and it remains necessary to ascertain the legal nature of the relationship based on the evidence.
A useful analysis of the term “flatmates” is found in the District Court decision of Musson v Dobrisek DC Lower Hutt CIV2006-032-36, 5 May 2006 where the landlord considered himself to be the “head tenant” who rented the other rooms to others that he considered to be “flatmates”.
On the issue of whether the legal relationship between a head tenant and the other occupants were flatmates of the head tenant, Judge Broadmore stated (at [22]): “By ‘flatmates’ I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, all occupants are on the same footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens.”
Some of the factors to consider when determining the issue include: a. The person to whom the other tenants pay the rent, in this case the named landlord; b. The understanding that exists between the parties; c. When each tenant occupied the premises and on whose authority.
I find that the evidence established clearly that this was a shared flatting situation. The relationship between the applicant and Mr de Cleene was not that of landlord and tenant, rather flatmates. The parties have had occupation of their own bedrooms within a house, sharing facilities in the usual way of flatmates.
The arrangement was for the parties to live co-operatively as flatmates, with the respondent being liable to pay the owner, and the parties sharing common living areas. I am satisfied that the living arrangement was a flatting type arrangement and excluded from the terms of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim. R Harvey-Lane 23 September 2024

Order

The application is dismissed.
By declaration, the agreement between Lukasz Nikodem Dobranski and David de Cleene in relation to the premises at 8 Swinton Close, Remuera, Auckland is not a residential tenancy and is therefore not subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
A preliminary question arises in this case of whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim.
Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental and must be decided before the Tribunal can go on to make any other findings. Put simply, if there is no jurisdiction, then I cannot proceed to hear the case.
The tenant says that he responded to an advertisement on TradeMe, specifically for a flatmate wanted.
The premises consist of three bedrooms. The tenant says he had use of all shared facilities and his bedroom.
The named landlord was the head tenant. The head tenant had a tenancy agreement with the owner. The tenant paid his rent to the head tenant. The head tenant had other flatmates living in the premises as well. The head tenant was responsible for the premises.
Both parties confirmed and agreed that the understanding was that the tenant was moving into the premises as a flatmate.
Initially when the tenant moved into the premises, there was a verbal agreement. An unsigned Flat/House – Sharing Agreement has been provided. The landlord advised that he gave this to the tenant later, but that it reflected the verbal arrangement for the tenant, and for other flatmates.
There are several previous cases that have come before the Tenancy Tribunal and the Courts where the question of whether an agreement is a flat sharing agreement or not has been considered.
The word “flatmate” does not in itself define the nature of the legal relationship between a flatmate and a landlord. The word is no more than a convenient label reflecting a functional reality and it remains necessary to ascertain the legal nature of the relationship based on the evidence.
A useful analysis of the term “flatmates” is found in the District Court decision of Musson v Dobrisek DC Lower Hutt CIV2006-032-36, 5 May 2006 where the landlord considered himself to be the “head tenant” who rented the other rooms to others that he considered to be “flatmates”.
On the issue of whether the legal relationship between a head tenant and the other occupants were flatmates of the head tenant, Judge Broadmore stated (at [22]): “By ‘flatmates’ I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, all occupants are on the same footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens.”
Some of the factors to consider when determining the issue include: a. The person to whom the other tenants pay the rent, in this case the named landlord; b. The understanding that exists between the parties; c. When each tenant occupied the premises and on whose authority.
I find that the evidence established clearly that this was a shared flatting situation. The relationship between the applicant and Mr de Cleene was not that of landlord and tenant, rather flatmates. The parties have had occupation of their own bedrooms within a house, sharing facilities in the usual way of flatmates.
The arrangement was for the parties to live co-operatively as flatmates, with the respondent being liable to pay the owner, and the parties sharing common living areas. I am satisfied that the living arrangement was a flatting type arrangement and excluded from the terms of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim. R Harvey-Lane 23 September 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4960254 — Tenancy dispute at 8 Swinton Close, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4960254 — Tenancy dispute at 8 Swinton Close, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions