What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4981590?

The tribunal order states: This is a residential tenancy, and the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear

How much money was awarded in case 4981590?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4981590?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4981590?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10885570-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4981590?

The tribunal order states: This is a residential tenancy, and the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear

How much money was awarded in case 4981590?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4981590?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4981590?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10885570-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9A Okoroire Street, Tirau, Tirau 3410 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4981590 — Boarding House

Order

This is a residential tenancy, and the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine claims.

Reasons

The applicant and the respondent attended the hearing by telephone. The tenant Kruze Raikena was called on the phone number provided but it was not answered. The hearing continued in their absence.
The applicant and the respondent are sisters. The applicant believes that this is not a residential tenancy, and that the RTA does not apply because tenancies with family members are excluded.
The respondent believes that it is a residential tenancy because it was accepted by WINZ who approved payment of rent and costs. The respondent said that the tenancy could only be ended by the applicant giving notice and claims that she did not.
The standard tenancy agreement obtained from tenancy services was signed by both parties on 14 June 2024 which stated the rent, when it was to be paid and bond amount. The tenancy began on 18th June 2024.
The landlord provided a copy of a notice that was issued to the respondent on 4 July 2024 giving her 63 days’ notice terminating the tenancy on 4 September 2024.The reason given was that the landlord wanted to move back into the premises.
Both parties stated that they have claims that need to be determined. The landlord is seeking a declaration that the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claims.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, RTA, states that the act is excluded where the premises are used principally as a place of residence by the landlord’s family. See section 5(1)(n), RTA. 5 Act excluded in certain cases. (1) This Act shall not apply in the following cases: (n) 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.
A member of an of the landlord’s or owner’s family is defined as Member of the landlord’s or owner’s family, in relation to a landlord or an owner, means— (a) any person who is or has been related to the landlord or owner— (i) by blood; or (ii) by or through marriage, a civil union, or a de facto relationship. (iii) by adoption: (b) any other person who is a member of the landlord’s or owner’s whānau or other culturally recognised family group: (c) any child who is being, or is to be, cared for on a continuous basis by— (i) the landlord or owner; or (ii) the landlord’s or owner’s spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner.
On this basis the current tenancy arrangement is classed as excluded from the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal. If however, the parties wish to contract back into the RTA they must agree in writing, See section 8, RTA, 8 Parties to excluded tenancies may agree that Act shall apply. (1) Nothing in any of sections 5 to 7 shall prevent the parties to a tenancy that would otherwise be excluded from this Act by virtue of any of the provisions of those sections, being a tenancy of any premises used or intended to be used for residential premises, from agreeing in writing that all or any of the provisions of this Act shall apply in respect of the tenancy, either without modification or with such modifications as they may so agree. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), any such agreement may confer upon the Tribunal, in respect of the tenancy, all or any of the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal by this Act in respect of tenancies to which this Act applies. 10 Onus of proof Where, in any proceedings before the Tribunal, any party contends that this Act does not apply in respect of any tenancy of any residential premises, it shall be for that party to establish the facts upon which it is contended that this Act does not apply.
There was no written agreement that all or any of the provisions of the RTA were to apply to this tenancy. The applicant said that they used the online tenancy agreement template as this was the first time that they had rented out the premises and were not sure what to do. The 63-day notice was also a template, but she believed that RTA did not apply.
Does using the template tenancy agreement from the tenancy services website mean that the parties have agreed in writing that this is a residential tenancy or does section 8 require some further action recording the intention of the parties to contract into the RTA?
This question was considered by the District Court in Featherston v Barfoot and Thompson Limited [2015] NZDC12810, where the parties had paid a bond and signed a tenancy agreement that stated in the special conditions that all the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1896 shall apply to this tenancy.
The party claiming that the Tenancy Tribunal did not have jurisdiction argued that ‘despite wordings in general conditions, that did not amount to an agreement in writing fulfilling the requirements of s.8.... there should have been a specific provision written into the tenancy agreement referring to s.8.’
This view not accepted by the court who found in para [18] that ‘the tenancy agreement clearly imports all the provisions of the Act into the tenancy. The agreement is in writing signed by the necessary parties and plainly is intended to incorporate all the provisions of the Act.... once the parties agree that a bond should be paid then the Act will apply’
This case has direct relevance here as the parties signed an agreement that continually reference the provisions of the RTA and outlines the rights and obligations of landlords’ and tenants as stated in the RTA. A bond was agreed by the parties, but not paid.
On this basis I find that the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims filled by the parties.
A new application will need to be made to the Tenancy Tribunal if either party intends to have their claims heard and determined.

Order

This is a residential tenancy, and the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine claims.

Reasons

The applicant and the respondent attended the hearing by telephone. The tenant Kruze Raikena was called on the phone number provided but it was not answered. The hearing continued in their absence.
The applicant and the respondent are sisters. The applicant believes that this is not a residential tenancy, and that the RTA does not apply because tenancies with family members are excluded.
The respondent believes that it is a residential tenancy because it was accepted by WINZ who approved payment of rent and costs. The respondent said that the tenancy could only be ended by the applicant giving notice and claims that she did not.
The standard tenancy agreement obtained from tenancy services was signed by both parties on 14 June 2024 which stated the rent, when it was to be paid and bond amount. The tenancy began on 18th June 2024.
The landlord provided a copy of a notice that was issued to the respondent on 4 July 2024 giving her 63 days’ notice terminating the tenancy on 4 September 2024.The reason given was that the landlord wanted to move back into the premises.
Both parties stated that they have claims that need to be determined. The landlord is seeking a declaration that the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claims.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, RTA, states that the act is excluded where the premises are used principally as a place of residence by the landlord’s family. See section 5(1)(n), RTA. 5 Act excluded in certain cases. (1) This Act shall not apply in the following cases: (n) 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.
A member of an of the landlord’s or owner’s family is defined as Member of the landlord’s or owner’s family, in relation to a landlord or an owner, means— (a) any person who is or has been related to the landlord or owner— (i) by blood; or (ii) by or through marriage, a civil union, or a de facto relationship. (iii) by adoption: (b) any other person who is a member of the landlord’s or owner’s whānau or other culturally recognised family group: (c) any child who is being, or is to be, cared for on a continuous basis by— (i) the landlord or owner; or (ii) the landlord’s or owner’s spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner.
On this basis the current tenancy arrangement is classed as excluded from the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal. If however, the parties wish to contract back into the RTA they must agree in writing, See section 8, RTA, 8 Parties to excluded tenancies may agree that Act shall apply. (1) Nothing in any of sections 5 to 7 shall prevent the parties to a tenancy that would otherwise be excluded from this Act by virtue of any of the provisions of those sections, being a tenancy of any premises used or intended to be used for residential premises, from agreeing in writing that all or any of the provisions of this Act shall apply in respect of the tenancy, either without modification or with such modifications as they may so agree. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), any such agreement may confer upon the Tribunal, in respect of the tenancy, all or any of the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal by this Act in respect of tenancies to which this Act applies. 10 Onus of proof Where, in any proceedings before the Tribunal, any party contends that this Act does not apply in respect of any tenancy of any residential premises, it shall be for that party to establish the facts upon which it is contended that this Act does not apply.
There was no written agreement that all or any of the provisions of the RTA were to apply to this tenancy. The applicant said that they used the online tenancy agreement template as this was the first time that they had rented out the premises and were not sure what to do. The 63-day notice was also a template, but she believed that RTA did not apply.
Does using the template tenancy agreement from the tenancy services website mean that the parties have agreed in writing that this is a residential tenancy or does section 8 require some further action recording the intention of the parties to contract into the RTA?
This question was considered by the District Court in Featherston v Barfoot and Thompson Limited [2015] NZDC12810, where the parties had paid a bond and signed a tenancy agreement that stated in the special conditions that all the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1896 shall apply to this tenancy.
The party claiming that the Tenancy Tribunal did not have jurisdiction argued that ‘despite wordings in general conditions, that did not amount to an agreement in writing fulfilling the requirements of s.8.... there should have been a specific provision written into the tenancy agreement referring to s.8.’
This view not accepted by the court who found in para [18] that ‘the tenancy agreement clearly imports all the provisions of the Act into the tenancy. The agreement is in writing signed by the necessary parties and plainly is intended to incorporate all the provisions of the Act.... once the parties agree that a bond should be paid then the Act will apply’
This case has direct relevance here as the parties signed an agreement that continually reference the provisions of the RTA and outlines the rights and obligations of landlords’ and tenants as stated in the RTA. A bond was agreed by the parties, but not paid.
On this basis I find that the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims filled by the parties.
A new application will need to be made to the Tenancy Tribunal if either party intends to have their claims heard and determined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4981590 — Boarding House at 9A Okoroire Street, Tirau, Tirau 3410

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4981590 — Boarding House at 9A Okoroire Street, Tirau, Tirau 3410

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