What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5081811?

The tribunal order states: By declaration, the agreement between Ian Troy Kidd and Juanita Shields in

How much money was awarded in case 5081811?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5081811?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5081811?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11419521-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5081811?

The tribunal order states: By declaration, the agreement between Ian Troy Kidd and Juanita Shields in

How much money was awarded in case 5081811?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5081811?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5081811?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11419521-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 215, 57 Mahuhu Crescent, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5081811 — Tenancy dispute

Order

By declaration, the agreement between Ian Troy Kidd and Juanita Shields in relation to the premises at flat 215, 57 Mahuhu Crescent, Auckland Central 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 he wish to do so.

Reasons

The applicant and landlord 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 Shields is the landlord but also the head tenant.
The tenancy began on 11 November 2023. The applicant says that he applied through a TradeMe advertisement for flatmates wanted.
The respondent Ms Shields held the tenancy agreement from May 2022 or 2023. She could not recall exactly when. She held the tenancy agreement for the property at the time the applicant moved in. Although the landlord, for all intents and purposes Ms Shields was the head tenant.
The premises consisted of a two-bedroom flat with one shared bathroom and one kitchen. The dwelling is single level. The applicant had exclusive use of his bedroom but shared the kitchen, bathroom and living room with the landlord.
When the applicant moved in there was no written agreement. Everything was verbal. The verbal agreement was that when he left the landlord would return the bond of $1280.00. She acknowledged receiving the bond however says that she currently does not have the money to return to the applicant. She further stated that the applicant’s bond money was also sent to the bond centre and is currently held while an issue with the lodgement name is resolved.
Other than exclusive use of his own bedroom the applicant shared all other facilities within the house. He used the same kitchen, bathroom and living area. He paid his share of the rent and expenses to the landlord.
It would appear that the applicant understood at the time that he was moving in as a flatmate and not a tenant.
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 respondent.
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.
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 in this case establishes clearly that this was a shared flatting situation. 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 applicant being liable to pay the landlord (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 appropriate course would be for the applicant to re-commence his claim in the Disputes Tribunal, should he 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 applicant has applied for non-publication of his name. His application has not been successful and accordingly I make no order for name suppression.

Order

By declaration, the agreement between Ian Troy Kidd and Juanita Shields in relation to the premises at flat 215, 57 Mahuhu Crescent, Auckland Central 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 he wish to do so.

Reasons

The applicant and landlord 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 Shields is the landlord but also the head tenant.
The tenancy began on 11 November 2023. The applicant says that he applied through a TradeMe advertisement for flatmates wanted.
The respondent Ms Shields held the tenancy agreement from May 2022 or 2023. She could not recall exactly when. She held the tenancy agreement for the property at the time the applicant moved in. Although the landlord, for all intents and purposes Ms Shields was the head tenant.
The premises consisted of a two-bedroom flat with one shared bathroom and one kitchen. The dwelling is single level. The applicant had exclusive use of his bedroom but shared the kitchen, bathroom and living room with the landlord.
When the applicant moved in there was no written agreement. Everything was verbal. The verbal agreement was that when he left the landlord would return the bond of $1280.00. She acknowledged receiving the bond however says that she currently does not have the money to return to the applicant. She further stated that the applicant’s bond money was also sent to the bond centre and is currently held while an issue with the lodgement name is resolved.
Other than exclusive use of his own bedroom the applicant shared all other facilities within the house. He used the same kitchen, bathroom and living area. He paid his share of the rent and expenses to the landlord.
It would appear that the applicant understood at the time that he was moving in as a flatmate and not a tenant.
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 respondent.
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.
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 in this case establishes clearly that this was a shared flatting situation. 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 applicant being liable to pay the landlord (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 appropriate course would be for the applicant to re-commence his claim in the Disputes Tribunal, should he 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 applicant has applied for non-publication of his name. His application has not been successful and accordingly I make no order for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5081811 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 215, 57 Mahuhu Crescent, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5081811 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 215, 57 Mahuhu Crescent, Auckland Central,

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