How much money was awarded in case 5011648?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5011648?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5011648?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11266930-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5011648?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5011648?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5011648?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11266930-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

29 Kilcadden Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5011648 — 14-day notice

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5011648?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal declares the claim does not fall within the Residential Tenancies Act

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

The Tribunal declares the claim does not fall within the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and that the Tribunal does not hold jurisdiction to determine this application.

The application is dismissed.

The Applicants will need to pursue the matter before the Disputes Tribunal should they wish to do so.

Reasons

The landlords attended the hearing via remote teleconference. Attempts were made to contact the tenants on the overseas telephone numbers provided were unsuccessful.

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both landlords and tenants.

The parties entered into an agreement for rental of the premises headed “Flat / house – Sharing agreement” executed by both parties on 30 July 2024. The agreement records, amongst other things, expressly that: a. The agreement starts on 4 September 2024 and will continue until 23 October 2024. b. ... c. The agreement can be terminated by either party by giving 14 days’ notice. d. The rent covers all outgoings. e. The flatmate agrees to share the house cleaning and chores with the landlord. f. In the event of any dispute the parties agree that the dispute will be determined by the Disputes Tribunal.

The question for the Tribunal to determine at this time is whether this arrangement between the parties is a ‘flat / house sharing’ agreement or a residential tenancy. For brevity I will refer to the parties as ‘landlord’ and ‘tenant’.

The landlord advertised the house as a room to let. In the past their flatmates would sometimes stay for two months or even less. The flatmates share the kitchen and bathroom facilities.

The landlord says that they signed an agreement with the current tenants however they did not move in. The landlords sent a number of emails but received no response from them. The tenants did not pay a deposit to hold the room.

The nature of the premises is not in dispute. The landlords reside at the premises and simply rent a room to flatmates for periods of short duration. Except for their own bedroom the tenants do not have exclusive use of the premises. They share kitchen, bathroom and other living areas of the house.

The issue to be determined at this time, is whether this is a residential tenancy for which the RTA applies, or is it a flatting / house sharing arrangement for which the RTA is excluded. If it is excluded (termed an excluded tenancy) the obligations that exist between landlords and tenants will not apply, and further the Tribunal would not have jurisdiction to consider the claims.

Section 4 of the RTA, states that the RTA “applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided”.

As recorded above, section 4 confirms that the RTA applies to every tenancy for residential purposes, except as specifically provided. The specific exclusions are found in section 5 of the RTA. Section 5 sets out wide ranging circumstances in which that arrangement that would otherwise be a residential tenancy, is excluded from the RTA. Of particular relevance in this case is the exclusion at section 5(1)(n), which holds 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:

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 on the basis of the evidence.

A useful analysis of the term “flatmates” is found in the District Court decision of Musson v Dobrisek DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006- 032-36, 5 May 2006 where the landlord considered himself to be the “head tenant” and that he rented the other rooms to others whom 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 take into account when determining the issue include: a. The person to whom the other tenants pay the rent, in this case, the landlord or the owner; b. The understanding that exists between the parties; c. When each tenant occupied the premises and on whose authority.

In the case before me, I am entirely satisfied that given the fully documented shared nature of the “premises” rented by the tenant, mean the premises would fall within the section 5(1)(n) exclusion, meaning the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine this dispute.

I find that the evidence establishes clearly that this was a house sharing situation. The relationship between the applicant and the ‘tenants’ was not that of landlord and tenant, rather flatmates. The parties have each had occupation of their own bedroom of a house, sharing facilities in the usual way of flatmates.

The arrangement was for the parties to live co-operatively and the parties sharing common living areas. I am satisfied that the living arrangement was a house sharing type agreement and excluded from the terms of the RTA. The exception to the RTA under section 5(1)(n) applies.

The appropriate course would be for the applicants to re-commence their claim in the Disputes Tribunal, should they wish to continue with this.

The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim.

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.

The landlords applied for a name suppression order. The landlords are not entitled to name suppression as the application has been unsuccessful.

Order

The Tribunal declares the claim does not fall within the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and that the Tribunal does not hold jurisdiction to determine this application.

The application is dismissed.

The Applicants will need to pursue the matter before the Disputes Tribunal should they wish to do so.

Reasons

The landlords attended the hearing via remote teleconference. Attempts were made to contact the tenants on the overseas telephone numbers provided were unsuccessful.

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both landlords and tenants.

The landlord advertised the house as a room to let. In the past their flatmates would sometimes stay for two months or even less. The flatmates share the kitchen and bathroom facilities.

Section 4 of the RTA, states that the RTA “applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided”.

The appropriate course would be for the applicants to re-commence their claim in the Disputes Tribunal, should they wish to continue with this.

The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim.

The landlords applied for a name suppression order. The landlords are not entitled to name suppression as the application has been unsuccessful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5011648 — 14-day notice at 29 Kilcadden Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5011648 — 14-day notice at 29 Kilcadden Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

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