What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5212571?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 5212571?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5212571?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5212571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11888268-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5212571?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 5212571?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5212571?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5212571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11888268-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

30 Symonds Street, Grafton, Auckland 1010, Princeton Tenancy Tribunal Case 5212571 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

The applicant attended the hearing in person.

Eddie Yip and Nigel Ng attended the hearing for the respondent.

Ms Qian applies for refund of $414.29 for the cost of five days accommodation and the filing fee.

Ms Qian booked and paid for two weeks accommodation at the premises for holiday purposes. Upon arrival, she was dissatisfied with the premises’ condition and only stayed for two days. The respondent refunded her one week’s accommodation but not the other unused five days’ accommodation.

Because the accommodation was for rental purposes, the Tribunal must consider s 5(1)(m) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). That paragraph provides: 5 Act excluded in certain cases (1) This Act shall not apply in the following cases: (a)... ... (m) where the premises are let for the tenant’s holiday purposes: Legal principles

The long title of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states, among other things, it is a establish a Tribunal to determine disputes between landlords and tenants of residential properties: An Act to reform and restate the law relating to residential tenancies, to define the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants of residential properties, to establish a tribunal to determine expeditiously disputes arising between such landlords and tenants, to establish a fund in which bonds payable by such tenants are to be held, and to repeal the Tenancy Act 1955 and the Rent Appeal Act 1973 and their amendments

The RTA sets out the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the heading “Jurisdiction” at ss 77-

Section 77(1) is the foundational subsection: 77 Jurisdiction of Tribunal (1) The Tribunal has, subject to the Limitation Act 2010, jurisdiction to determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that— (a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time. (Emphasis added)

There is no getting out of the Act if there is a residential tenancy. Section 4 of the RTA provides that: This Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.

Consonant with s 4, s 11 of the RTA provides that an agreement to exclude the Act is “of no effect”. 1 Discussion

In this case the RTA had “specifically provided” that the RTA does not apply where the premises “are let for the tenant’s holiday purposes”

The premises were let for the tenant’s holiday purposes.

It follows that the RTA does not apply, and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the applicant’s claim. Conclusion

The Tribunal cannot hear the claim. It is dismissed. 1 There are limited exceptions set out in s 11 that do not apply here. Addendum

The appropriate forum is probably the Disputes Tribunal. If the tenant cannot agree to a resolution with the respondent, she may wish to file a claim in that tribunal.

Reasons

The applicant attended the hearing in person.

Eddie Yip and Nigel Ng attended the hearing for the respondent.

Ms Qian applies for refund of $414.29 for the cost of five days accommodation and the filing fee.

The RTA sets out the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the heading “Jurisdiction” at ss 77-

There is no getting out of the Act if there is a residential tenancy. Section 4 of the RTA provides that: This Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.

Consonant with s 4, s 11 of the RTA provides that an agreement to exclude the Act is “of no effect”. 1 Discussion

In this case the RTA had “specifically provided” that the RTA does not apply where the premises “are let for the tenant’s holiday purposes”

The premises were let for the tenant’s holiday purposes.

It follows that the RTA does not apply, and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the applicant’s claim. Conclusion

The Tribunal cannot hear the claim. It is dismissed. 1 There are limited exceptions set out in s 11 that do not apply here. Addendum

The appropriate forum is probably the Disputes Tribunal. If the tenant cannot agree to a resolution with the respondent, she may wish to file a claim in that tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5212571 — Tenancy dispute at 30 Symonds Street, Grafton, Auckland 1010, Princeton

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5212571 — Tenancy dispute at 30 Symonds Street, Grafton, Auckland 1010, Princeton

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions