What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5065092?

The tribunal order states: By declaration, the agreement between Alicja Skop and Rachael Siohane-

How much money was awarded in case 5065092?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5065092?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5065092?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11396666-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5065092?

The tribunal order states: By declaration, the agreement between Alicja Skop and Rachael Siohane-

How much money was awarded in case 5065092?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5065092?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5065092?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11396666-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

57 Strickland Street, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5065092 — Cleanliness

Order

By declaration, the agreement between Alicja Skop and Rachael Siohane- Royle in relation to the premises at 57 Strickland Street, Sydenham, Christchurch 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.
The Applicant will need to pursue the matter before the Disputes Tribunal should she wish to do so.

Reasons

The landlord (“head tenant”) and tenant attended the hearing by remote teleconference.
A preliminary question arises in this case, namely, whether or not the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim, by virtue of s 5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental and must be decided before the Tribunal can go on to make any other findings in a case. Put simply, if there is no jurisdiction, then I cannot proceed to hear the case.
Ms Skop is the head tenant of the respondent. She confirmed during the hearing that she holds the Tenancy Agreement for the property. The premises consist of a 3-bedroom, single level house with one bathroom and a small kitchen. The head tenant sublets the remaining two bedrooms to this ‘tenant’ and one other.
Other than exclusive use of their own bedrooms the ‘tenants’ share all other facilities within the house. They all use the same kitchen, bathroom and living area. They pay their share of the rent and expenses to the head tenant.
The head tenant advertised through TradeMe for flatmates wanted. The tenant also confirmed during the hearing that she responded to a flatmates wanted advertisement. The tenant understood at the time that she was moving in as a flatmate and not a tenant.
On 22 May 2024 the tenant signed a ‘Tenancy Agreement’ for the above address. The terms of the agreement were as follows: a. Rent: $250.00 per week b. Bond $500.00 c. Tenancy commencement: 13 May 2024 d. Notice period: 4 weeks (from both sides, landlord and tenant) e. ...
The tenant vacated the premises on or about 16 October 2024. The head tenant stated that she never paid the bond. The head tenant now seeks payment of unpaid rent, the bond and a cleaning fee.
There is an issue as to whether or not this is a flatting type of arrangement and if the premises continued to be used principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the landlord’s family and thus excluded from the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)).
If the parties are in a flatting situation then I do not have jurisdiction. The issue that I must determine is whether the relationship was a flat sharing agreement of premises shared with the applicant. If so, then the exclusion in s 5(1)(n) will apply and the RTA will not apply.
There are a number of 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.
In Whitelock v McConway 1 the subject premises were a sleepout, contained in a building which also contained the family shower and laundry room. The facilities within the sleepout where the tenant lived were limited in that there was no kitchen or sitting room. The tenant was expected to share the shower and laundry with 1 DC Christchurch, C IV 2010 0092030 the family. It was found that the exclusion in s 5(1)(n) applied and so the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim.
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 (head tenant); b. The understanding that exists between the parties; c. When each tenant occupied the premises and on whose authority.
I find that the evidence establishes clearly that this was a shared flatting situation. The relationship between Ms Skop and the tenant was not that of landlord and tenant, rather flatmates. The parties have each had occupation of their own bedrooms of a house, sharing facilities in the usual way of flatmates.
The arrangement was for the parties to live co-operatively as flatmates, with the tenants being liable to pay the head tenant, and the parties sharing common living areas. I am satisfied that the living arrangement was a flatting 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 applicant to re-commence her claim in the Disputes Tribunal, should she wish to continue with this. That Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear and determine this dispute between the parties.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim.
The application is dismissed.
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 landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression as the application has been unsuccessful – see section 95A RTA.

Order

By declaration, the agreement between Alicja Skop and Rachael Siohane- Royle in relation to the premises at 57 Strickland Street, Sydenham, Christchurch 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.
The Applicant will need to pursue the matter before the Disputes Tribunal should she wish to do so.

Reasons

The landlord (“head tenant”) and tenant attended the hearing by remote teleconference.
A preliminary question arises in this case, namely, whether or not the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim, by virtue of s 5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental and must be decided before the Tribunal can go on to make any other findings in a case. Put simply, if there is no jurisdiction, then I cannot proceed to hear the case.
Ms Skop is the head tenant of the respondent. She confirmed during the hearing that she holds the Tenancy Agreement for the property. The premises consist of a 3-bedroom, single level house with one bathroom and a small kitchen. The head tenant sublets the remaining two bedrooms to this ‘tenant’ and one other.
Other than exclusive use of their own bedrooms the ‘tenants’ share all other facilities within the house. They all use the same kitchen, bathroom and living area. They pay their share of the rent and expenses to the head tenant.
The head tenant advertised through TradeMe for flatmates wanted. The tenant also confirmed during the hearing that she responded to a flatmates wanted advertisement. The tenant understood at the time that she was moving in as a flatmate and not a tenant.
On 22 May 2024 the tenant signed a ‘Tenancy Agreement’ for the above address. The terms of the agreement were as follows: a. Rent: $250.00 per week b. Bond $500.00 c. Tenancy commencement: 13 May 2024 d. Notice period: 4 weeks (from both sides, landlord and tenant) e. ...
The tenant vacated the premises on or about 16 October 2024. The head tenant stated that she never paid the bond. The head tenant now seeks payment of unpaid rent, the bond and a cleaning fee.
There is an issue as to whether or not this is a flatting type of arrangement and if the premises continued to be used principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the landlord’s family and thus excluded from the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)).
If the parties are in a flatting situation then I do not have jurisdiction. The issue that I must determine is whether the relationship was a flat sharing agreement of premises shared with the applicant. If so, then the exclusion in s 5(1)(n) will apply and the RTA will not apply.
There are a number of 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.
In Whitelock v McConway 1 the subject premises were a sleepout, contained in a building which also contained the family shower and laundry room. The facilities within the sleepout where the tenant lived were limited in that there was no kitchen or sitting room. The tenant was expected to share the shower and laundry with 1 DC Christchurch, C IV 2010 0092030 the family. It was found that the exclusion in s 5(1)(n) applied and so the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim.
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 (head tenant); b. The understanding that exists between the parties; c. When each tenant occupied the premises and on whose authority.
I find that the evidence establishes clearly that this was a shared flatting situation. The relationship between Ms Skop and the tenant was not that of landlord and tenant, rather flatmates. The parties have each had occupation of their own bedrooms of a house, sharing facilities in the usual way of flatmates.
The arrangement was for the parties to live co-operatively as flatmates, with the tenants being liable to pay the head tenant, and the parties sharing common living areas. I am satisfied that the living arrangement was a flatting 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 applicant to re-commence her claim in the Disputes Tribunal, should she wish to continue with this. That Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear and determine this dispute between the parties.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim.
The application is dismissed.
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 landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression as the application has been unsuccessful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5065092 — Cleanliness at 57 Strickland Street, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5065092 — Cleanliness at 57 Strickland Street, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023

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