What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5245431?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the application.

How much money was awarded in case 5245431?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245431?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245431?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12027151-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5245431?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the application.

How much money was awarded in case 5245431?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245431?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245431?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12027151-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17 Deacon Street, Halswell, Christchurch 8025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5245431 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by phone.

The tenant has made an application for an early release from her tenancy and for a declaration that she is not liable for rent from the time she vacated the premises.

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) does not apply to all tenancies – some are excluded.

In this case there was no landlord/tenant relationship between the parties. Mr Nam as a tenant has a residential tenancy with his landlord. He decided to take in a flatmate. Ms Cameron-Small responded to his advertisement for a flatmate.

The parties entered into a flatmate agreement. Both accept that. The agreement describes Mr Nam as the head tenant.

In Musson v Dobrisek 1 the Court held: [22]By "flatmates" I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, all occupants are on same footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens. However, the legal position of people quite legitimately described as flatmates can vary considerably:

The owner may share occupation with others who pay him rent. The others may be tenants of the owner or mere licensees.

A tenant may hold the tenancy of the whole dwelling and arrange for others to share occupation with him or her. Again, the others may be subtenants or mere licensees of the head tenant. The head tenant may make a profit, or subsidise his or her own rent, by charging proportionately more of the rent to the other occupants. He or she is also at risk of loss if there are vacancies.

A group of people may take a joint tenancy of the dwelling, with the intention (not always achieved) that incoming tenants would replace outgoing ones vis-a-vis the landlord so that they all have a liability for rent to that landlord. ...

The fact situation here falls under the second example referred to by the Court. Mr Nam holds a tenancy as between him and his landlord and arranged to share occupation with Ms Cameron-Small. She had a licence to occupy, but not a separate residential tenancy as between her as a tenant and Mr Nam as a landlord. They were flatmates.

The Tenancy Tribunal only has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between landlords and tenants.

As there is no landlord/tenant relationship between these parties the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the application.

The dispute falls under the jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal. 1 CIV-2006-032036 Result

The application is dismissed.

Reasons