Tenantcheck Insights

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 4945435 — Tenancy dispute

Decided 3 Sept 2024 · Published 3 Sept 2024 · Application 4945435

Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

New Zealand

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

B Smallbone

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 4945435 — Tenancy dispute

Decided 3 Sept 2024 · Published 3 Sept 2024 · Application 4945435

Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

New Zealand

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

B Smallbone

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Order

The application is struck out.
Cross Application 4945435 is also struck out.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by phone.
The issue to be decided is whether the residential tenancy is one covered by the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Charlotte Miller has claimed that she was a tenant at [Tenancy address suppressed] and that the respondent was her landlord. The respondent has submitted that Charlotte was a flatmate, not a tenant. The respondent lodged her cross application in the event that the Tenancy Tribunal ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear Charlotte’s claim.
The premises was occupied by Charlotte, the respondent and two others. Each person living at the premises occupied a bedroom but the rest of the house was common area. The property is owned by the respondent’s parents.
Charlotte and the other occupants signed a ‘Roommate Agreement’ (the Agreement). The Agreement has been made available to the Tribunal through the respondent’s cross application. The Agreement shows that Charlotte does not have a tenancy agreement with the respondent or the respondent’s parents. The respondent has an agreement with her parents that she pays them rent and will share the premises with roommates that she chooses. The respondent collects the rent from the occupants and forwards it to the landlord. The respondent is not the agent of the landlord. She is the landlord’s tenant.
This arrangement, where one person has a tenancy and takes in flatmates is common. Flatmate agreements are excluded from the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 because they are not landlord/tenant agreements.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this application or the respondent’s application against Charlotte. Disputes between flatmates are heard in the Disputes Tribunal.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

NO ADDRESS

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4945435 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is struck out.

How much money was awarded in case 4945435?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4945435?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4945435?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10778101-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Order

The application is struck out.
Cross Application 4945435 is also struck out.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by phone.
The issue to be decided is whether the residential tenancy is one covered by the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Charlotte Miller has claimed that she was a tenant at [Tenancy address suppressed] and that the respondent was her landlord. The respondent has submitted that Charlotte was a flatmate, not a tenant. The respondent lodged her cross application in the event that the Tenancy Tribunal ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear Charlotte’s claim.
The premises was occupied by Charlotte, the respondent and two others. Each person living at the premises occupied a bedroom but the rest of the house was common area. The property is owned by the respondent’s parents.
Charlotte and the other occupants signed a ‘Roommate Agreement’ (the Agreement). The Agreement has been made available to the Tribunal through the respondent’s cross application. The Agreement shows that Charlotte does not have a tenancy agreement with the respondent or the respondent’s parents. The respondent has an agreement with her parents that she pays them rent and will share the premises with roommates that she chooses. The respondent collects the rent from the occupants and forwards it to the landlord. The respondent is not the agent of the landlord. She is the landlord’s tenant.
This arrangement, where one person has a tenancy and takes in flatmates is common. Flatmate agreements are excluded from the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 because they are not landlord/tenant agreements.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this application or the respondent’s application against Charlotte. Disputes between flatmates are heard in the Disputes Tribunal.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

NO ADDRESS

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4945435 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is struck out.

How much money was awarded in case 4945435?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4945435?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4945435?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10778101-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.