What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5065830 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both the applicants and respondent’s names

How much money was awarded in case 5065830?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5065830?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5065830?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11436173-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5065830 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both the applicants and respondent’s names

How much money was awarded in case 5065830?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5065830?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5065830?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11436173-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5065830 — Rent arrears

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of both the applicants and respondent’s names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicants have filed an application with the Tenancy Tribunal seeking rent arrears from the respondent, whom they claim failed to meet his payment obligations under an agreed rental arrangement. In response, the respondent has filed a cross-application claiming the applicants have breach their obligations, but also arguing that the arrangement did not constitute a tenancy under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) and that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter. He asserts that his occupation of a room in the applicants’ home falls under an exclusion in section 5(1)(n) of the Act, as the property was primarily used as the applicants’ place of residence.
The applicants state that the respondent initially stayed at their home as an Airbnb guest, booking multiple short-term stays, including from 26 October 2023 to 30 October 2023 and from 11 November 2023 to 13 November 2023. They say that during these visits, the respondent built a rapport with them and later requested to stay for a longer period outside the Airbnb platform, which they agreed to. Under this verbal agreement, the respondent began residing at the property and made weekly payments of $400 directly into their account.
Subsequently, the applicants purchased a new property, and the respondent expressed interest in continuing to rent a room at the new address. They agreed to a new verbal arrangement under which the respondent would pay $300 per week. However, the applicants claim that the respondent failed to pay rent for the final two weeks at their previous home and ceased making payments entirely from 14 April 2024 to 29 June 2024. The applicants sought to recover the outstanding rent.
The respondent disputes that a tenancy existed and contends that the arrangement falls outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. He argues that he was merely a licensee rather than a tenant, as the premises were primarily used as a place of residence by the applicants and their family, and he shared common household facilities with them. He relies on section 5(1)(n) of the Act, which excludes situations where a landlord and tenant share a primary place of residence unless the property qualifies as a boarding house. Since the applicants continued to reside in the home, he maintains that the Tribunal has no authority to determine the claim.
I find the applications do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal, as the arrangement between the parties does not meet the criteria of a tenancy under the RTA.
The initial arrangement was made under Airbnb and later extended through a private agreement between the parties. However, even beyond the Airbnb bookings, the nature of the arrangement does not establish a tenancy under the Act.
The key issue is whether the exclusion under section 5(1)(n) of the RTA applies, which states that a tenancy is excluded if the premises continue to be used primarily as a residence by the landlord or their family. The evidence shows that the applicants and their family lived at the home while renting a room to the respondent. When they purchased their new home, the tenant remained at their previous home alone for a disputed period claimed by the applicant’s to be two weeks and by the respondent to be approximately eight days. The respondent has asserted that many of their belongings remained during this time as they were in the process of moving.
For the exclusion to apply, the property must have continued to be principally used as the landlord or owner’s residence during the entire period. The fact that the applicants and family were physically residing in their new home while the respondent remained at their old home does not necessarily mean the property ceased to be their principal place of residence. The process of moving does not immediately terminate a residence, especially when significant belongings remain in the property, and the transition period is brief. The applicants continued connection to the property supports the view that both their homes remained their principal place of residence during the relevant time.
This arrangement clearly falls outside the scope of the RTA, as it aligns more closely with a boarding or flatmate situation rather than a tenancy agreement. Arrangements where a landlord and tenant share facilities in the same dwelling are generally considered licenses to occupy, not tenancies under the Act.
Given these circumstances, the Tribunal finds it does not have jurisdiction to consider the applications. The exclusion under section 5(1)(n) applies.
As the respondent has initiated proceedings in the Disputes Tribunal, that forum may be more appropriate for resolving any outstanding financial disputes. The Tenancy Tribunal, however, does not have jurisdiction over these claims, and the applications are dismissed on that basis.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of both the applicants and respondent’s names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicants have filed an application with the Tenancy Tribunal seeking rent arrears from the respondent, whom they claim failed to meet his payment obligations under an agreed rental arrangement. In response, the respondent has filed a cross-application claiming the applicants have breach their obligations, but also arguing that the arrangement did not constitute a tenancy under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) and that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter. He asserts that his occupation of a room in the applicants’ home falls under an exclusion in section 5(1)(n) of the Act, as the property was primarily used as the applicants’ place of residence.
The applicants state that the respondent initially stayed at their home as an Airbnb guest, booking multiple short-term stays, including from 26 October 2023 to 30 October 2023 and from 11 November 2023 to 13 November 2023. They say that during these visits, the respondent built a rapport with them and later requested to stay for a longer period outside the Airbnb platform, which they agreed to. Under this verbal agreement, the respondent began residing at the property and made weekly payments of $400 directly into their account.
Subsequently, the applicants purchased a new property, and the respondent expressed interest in continuing to rent a room at the new address. They agreed to a new verbal arrangement under which the respondent would pay $300 per week. However, the applicants claim that the respondent failed to pay rent for the final two weeks at their previous home and ceased making payments entirely from 14 April 2024 to 29 June 2024. The applicants sought to recover the outstanding rent.
The respondent disputes that a tenancy existed and contends that the arrangement falls outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. He argues that he was merely a licensee rather than a tenant, as the premises were primarily used as a place of residence by the applicants and their family, and he shared common household facilities with them. He relies on section 5(1)(n) of the Act, which excludes situations where a landlord and tenant share a primary place of residence unless the property qualifies as a boarding house. Since the applicants continued to reside in the home, he maintains that the Tribunal has no authority to determine the claim.
I find the applications do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal, as the arrangement between the parties does not meet the criteria of a tenancy under the RTA.
The initial arrangement was made under Airbnb and later extended through a private agreement between the parties. However, even beyond the Airbnb bookings, the nature of the arrangement does not establish a tenancy under the Act.
The key issue is whether the exclusion under section 5(1)(n) of the RTA applies, which states that a tenancy is excluded if the premises continue to be used primarily as a residence by the landlord or their family. The evidence shows that the applicants and their family lived at the home while renting a room to the respondent. When they purchased their new home, the tenant remained at their previous home alone for a disputed period claimed by the applicant’s to be two weeks and by the respondent to be approximately eight days. The respondent has asserted that many of their belongings remained during this time as they were in the process of moving.
For the exclusion to apply, the property must have continued to be principally used as the landlord or owner’s residence during the entire period. The fact that the applicants and family were physically residing in their new home while the respondent remained at their old home does not necessarily mean the property ceased to be their principal place of residence. The process of moving does not immediately terminate a residence, especially when significant belongings remain in the property, and the transition period is brief. The applicants continued connection to the property supports the view that both their homes remained their principal place of residence during the relevant time.
This arrangement clearly falls outside the scope of the RTA, as it aligns more closely with a boarding or flatmate situation rather than a tenancy agreement. Arrangements where a landlord and tenant share facilities in the same dwelling are generally considered licenses to occupy, not tenancies under the Act.
Given these circumstances, the Tribunal finds it does not have jurisdiction to consider the applications. The exclusion under section 5(1)(n) applies.
As the respondent has initiated proceedings in the Disputes Tribunal, that forum may be more appropriate for resolving any outstanding financial disputes. The Tenancy Tribunal, however, does not have jurisdiction over these claims, and the applications are dismissed on that basis.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5065830 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5065830 — Rent arrears

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