Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5105708 — Tenancy dispute at 31 Bayfield Road, Ponsonby, Auckland 1011
Decided 1 May 2025 · Published 1 May 2025 · Application 5105708
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
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
- This claim is struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing which was held by videoconference.
- The applicants have made a claim against the respondent in the Tenancy Tribunal. The first issue to be determined is whether this Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear their claim.
- The applicants say that their relationship constituted that as between a landlord and tenant because they were renting a unit on the of the ground floor of the house, the first floor being entirely occupied by the respondent. They say that the respondent sublet this unit which was separate and so she then became the sub-landlord with accompanying rights and obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- To support their point of view they say that their unit was lockable, as was the premises upstairs. They also point to the fact that the premises were advertised as a unit which comprised a bedroom, an ensuite and a living room. They also had a separate entrance.
- As the applicants, Ms Trippi and Mr Edfeldt are required to prove their case on the balance of probabilities – that is, that more likely than not the premises were entirely separate and therefore all parties were subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- I find that the applicants have not been able to prove their case to a sufficient standard.
- I say this for reasons that include: (a) The premises that they rented were not sufficiently separate so as be considered an entirely separate area – the laundry, basement storage area and garden were shared; and (b) There was one letterbox, one power meter and one water meter; and
- While this is not determinative, the contract between the parties was described as a ‘house sharing agreement’ and from the evidence before me, this arrangement was exactly as described.
- I note also that the parties had access to each other’s parts of the premises by way of keys kept in the mutual lock box and that on occasion the applicants availed themselves of the shower and dishwasher upstairs, at the respondent’s invitation. C ter Haar 01 May 2025