What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5399191?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5399191?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5399191?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5399191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12969748-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5399191?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5399191?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5399191?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5399191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12969748-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2C, 17 Blake Street, Ponsonby, Auckland 1011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5399191 — Unit Titles

Order

The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video conference.
This matter concerns an application by Ms Taylor, the landlord of Unit 2C at 17 Blake Street, Ponsonby. The application is made against Mr McCallum, the landlord of Unit 2D in the same apartment complex.
Ms Taylor’s application arises from what she describes as persistent antisocial, noisy, and aggressive behaviour by the tenant of Unit 2D, which she says has caused considerable distress to her tenant in Unit 2C.
Ms Taylor seeks various orders under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”), including termination of the tenancy of Unit 2D, compensation of $2,000 for stress and anxiety, and findings that the respondent has failed to meet his obligations as a landlord by allowing breaches of the Body Corporate rules to continue.
Mr McCallum submits that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear this matter, arguing that there is no tenancy relationship between the parties as required by the Act. Jurisdiction under the Act
The Tenancy Tribunal is a statutory body. It can only exercise powers that are expressly granted by the Act. The Tribunal cannot deal with disputes that fall outside the scope of the Act.
Section 4 of the Act provides that the Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes, except as specifically provided. For the Tribunal to have jurisdiction, there must therefore exist a tenancy relationship that is subject to the Act.
Section 77 of the Act describes the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in detail. Section 77(1) states that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to determine 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 the Act applies.
These provisions mean that the Tribunal can hear disputes arising from a tenancy relationship. If there is no such relationship between the parties, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction. Discussion
Ms Taylor is the owner and landlord of Unit 2C. Mr McCallum is the owner and landlord of Unit 2D.
The dispute before me arises not between a landlord and tenant, but between two landlords who each own separate dwellings within the same apartment complex.
Ms Taylor accepts that she has no tenancy relationship with Mr McCallum or with his tenant. Her application arises from frustration that neither the Body Corporate nor the respondent took what she considered to be adequate action to deal with the conduct of the tenant in Unit 2D.
I have sympathy for Ms Taylor and her tenant, who appear to have been disturbed and distressed by the behaviour complained of. However, the Tribunal’s powers are strictly defined by statute. They cannot be extended by the merits of any particular case.
The Tribunal’s role is to resolve disputes between landlords and tenants. It does not have authority to arbitrate between neighbouring property owners, to enforce Body Corporate rules, or to issue orders against one landlord at the request of another.
In this case, the proper forum for the applicant’s concerns is the Body Corporate, which has enforcement powers under the Unit Titles Act 2010. Ms Taylor needs to seek independent legal advice on the best way forward.
I accept the respondent’s submission that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the dispute, as the application before me is not a tenancy dispute between a landlord and a tenant under a tenancy agreement.
The current dispute is better described as an inter-landlord dispute, not one that falls within the scope of the Act.
During the hearing, I explained that the Tribunal cannot compel the Body Corporate to act, nor can it direct one landlord to take steps regarding their own tenant.
Only the landlord of Unit 2D, Mr McCallum, has standing to bring any application concerning the behaviour of his tenant. Conclusion
The dispute before me is not between a landlord and tenant but between two landlords of adjoining units. It therefore falls outside the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal as defined in sections 4 and 77 of the Act.
Accordingly, Ms Taylor’s application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Order

The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video conference.
This matter concerns an application by Ms Taylor, the landlord of Unit 2C at 17 Blake Street, Ponsonby. The application is made against Mr McCallum, the landlord of Unit 2D in the same apartment complex.
Ms Taylor’s application arises from what she describes as persistent antisocial, noisy, and aggressive behaviour by the tenant of Unit 2D, which she says has caused considerable distress to her tenant in Unit 2C.
Ms Taylor seeks various orders under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”), including termination of the tenancy of Unit 2D, compensation of $2,000 for stress and anxiety, and findings that the respondent has failed to meet his obligations as a landlord by allowing breaches of the Body Corporate rules to continue.
Mr McCallum submits that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear this matter, arguing that there is no tenancy relationship between the parties as required by the Act. Jurisdiction under the Act
The Tenancy Tribunal is a statutory body. It can only exercise powers that are expressly granted by the Act. The Tribunal cannot deal with disputes that fall outside the scope of the Act.
Section 4 of the Act provides that the Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes, except as specifically provided. For the Tribunal to have jurisdiction, there must therefore exist a tenancy relationship that is subject to the Act.
Section 77 of the Act describes the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in detail. Section 77(1) states that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to determine 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 the Act applies.
These provisions mean that the Tribunal can hear disputes arising from a tenancy relationship. If there is no such relationship between the parties, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction. Discussion
Ms Taylor is the owner and landlord of Unit 2C. Mr McCallum is the owner and landlord of Unit 2D.
The dispute before me arises not between a landlord and tenant, but between two landlords who each own separate dwellings within the same apartment complex.
Ms Taylor accepts that she has no tenancy relationship with Mr McCallum or with his tenant. Her application arises from frustration that neither the Body Corporate nor the respondent took what she considered to be adequate action to deal with the conduct of the tenant in Unit 2D.
I have sympathy for Ms Taylor and her tenant, who appear to have been disturbed and distressed by the behaviour complained of. However, the Tribunal’s powers are strictly defined by statute. They cannot be extended by the merits of any particular case.
The Tribunal’s role is to resolve disputes between landlords and tenants. It does not have authority to arbitrate between neighbouring property owners, to enforce Body Corporate rules, or to issue orders against one landlord at the request of another.
In this case, the proper forum for the applicant’s concerns is the Body Corporate, which has enforcement powers under the Unit Titles Act 2010. Ms Taylor needs to seek independent legal advice on the best way forward.
I accept the respondent’s submission that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the dispute, as the application before me is not a tenancy dispute between a landlord and a tenant under a tenancy agreement.
The current dispute is better described as an inter-landlord dispute, not one that falls within the scope of the Act.
During the hearing, I explained that the Tribunal cannot compel the Body Corporate to act, nor can it direct one landlord to take steps regarding their own tenant.
Only the landlord of Unit 2D, Mr McCallum, has standing to bring any application concerning the behaviour of his tenant. Conclusion
The dispute before me is not between a landlord and tenant but between two landlords of adjoining units. It therefore falls outside the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal as defined in sections 4 and 77 of the Act.
Accordingly, Ms Taylor’s application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5399191 — Unit Titles at Unit/Flat 2C, 17 Blake Street, Ponsonby, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5399191 — Unit Titles at Unit/Flat 2C, 17 Blake Street, Ponsonby, Auckland 1011

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