What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5193394 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5193394?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5193394?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5193394?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11772187-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5193394 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5193394?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5193394?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5193394?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11772187-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5193394 — Boarding House

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Applicant’s and Respondent’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Court was assisted by both a Mandarin and Cantonese interpreter.
On 14 March 2025, the applicant filed a claim seeking refund of a bond, alleging that the landlord had failed to lodge the bond, had failed to provide a written agreement, and had breached their right to reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy.
On 31 March 2025, the matter was set down for a hearing to determine whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claims.
The property is rented on a room-by-room basis. There are two claims arising from the same property. One is made by the applicant and the other by a different occupant. Both the applicant and the other occupant reside at the property with the respondent. In each case the nature of the occupancy appears to be the same, and the jurisdictional issues in both matters have been considered together.
At the outset of the hearing, the respondent stated that the property was their principal place of residence which they shared with the applicants. The Respondent stated they therefore believed they did not have a landlord tenant relationship that came under the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Law
In section 77 of the Act provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies.
Section 2(1) of the Act defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. The terms ’residential premises’, ‘tenancy’, and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined as: Residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful. Tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy. Tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises; and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement.
Section 4 of the Act provided that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Section 5 of the Act sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act.
Under section 10 of the Act the party challenging the jurisdiction of the Tribunal must establish that one of the exclusions in section 5 apply.
Section 8 of the Act provided that where then Act is excluded the parties can contract back into some of all of the Act.
Section 5(1)(n) of the Act states that the Act does not apply: Where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by the landlord’s or owner’s family.
A boarding house is defined in section 66(b) of the Act as residential premises containing one or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants of the boarding house and occupied or intended to be occupied by at least six tenants at any one time.
In the case of Musson v Dobrisek DC Lower Hutt, CIV 2006-032-36, 05 May 2006, the Court held that “principally” referred to the main use of the premises, not the relative duration of occupation by the landlord.
The Court stated the property must continue to be used predominantly as a place of residence by the landlord, owner, or their family.
Although the landlord will share the property with others, their use or enjoyment of the property must be greater than the other occupants.
When determining whether the Act is excluded, the Tribunal will objectively assess the substance of the agreement between the parties rather than the labels they have applied. Facts
On 07 February 2025, the parties entered into an oral agreement under which the respondent granted the applicant the right to occupy a room and share the facilities for $300.00 per week. The rent includes power and internet. The applicant paid a two-week bond. Respondent
The property is a single dwelling which consists of six bedrooms – three bedrooms have an ensuite, and three do not. There is a main bathroom with two toilets used by the occupants of the three rooms without an ensuite.
There is a dining/lounge room, and a second lounge.
There are four “cooking spaces” consisting of the main kitchen, a second smaller secondary kitchen nearby, an outside gas stove, and an outside BBQ. The main and smaller kitchens are both fully functioning kitchens and are located near to the dining / lounge area.
The respondent stated that they occupied one of the rooms with an ensuite.
The other five rooms were usually occupied by one person at a time. The respondent states the usual number of occupants at the property was five, excluding themselves. However, the respondent states earlier this year, a mother and their son had temporarily occupied one of the ensuite bedrooms for a fortnight, briefly increasing the number of occupants to six.
The respondent stated that there was one laundry shared by all occupants.
They further stated the property had a dining room/lounge area nearby to the main kitchen and smaller kitchen, and separate lounge both of which had a large television and could be used by all of the occupants.
The respondent states they shared the four cooking areas with all of the occupants, but mainly used the smaller inside kitchen and the outside gas stove. Applicant
The applicant stated that the property was in fact usually occupied by seven people. They stated that the respondent regularly had their partner stay over at the property with them.
The applicant accepted that the laundry was used by all occupants.
While the applicant was not barred from using the second lounge, they state they were discouraged from using it, and that the respondent preferred them to use the dining/lounge room.
The applicant stated that they had been barred from using the main kitchen, which was for the respondent’s use only. From time to time, they used the smaller secondary kitchen but mainly used the outside gas stove. There was no dispute that respondent the also used the smaller kitchen and the outdoor cooking areas. Respondents reply
The respondent denied that they had barred the applicant from using the main kitchen but accepted that they encouraged them not to use it because they did not properly clean up after themselves.
The respondent stated that they had a house rule prohibiting frying in the indoor cooking spaces, which the applicant accepted. All frying, including that done by the respondent, was to be conducted in one of the outside cooking spaces. The respondent added that they also avoided using the main kitchen, preferring to use the smaller kitchen used by the other occupants.
The respondent stated that their partner frequently travelled down from Auckland and stayed at the property. Decision
The parties entered into an oral residential tenancy agreement.
The property is not a boarding house as defined in section 66B of the Act, the property was not occupied or intended to be occupied by at least 6 or more tenants at one time.
Although the respondent shares the facilities (cooking, living, and washing) with the other occupants, they retain the ability to impose rules on how areas are used by the other occupants. I am satisfied that the landlords use, or enjoyment of the property is greater than that of the other occupants.
After considering the evidence, I am satisfied the property is principally used as a place of residence by the respondent.
The exclusion in 5(1)(n) of the Act applies. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the substantive claims made by the applicant.
There is no evidence that the parties agreed in writing to contract back into the provisions of the Act.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Applicant’s and Respondent’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Court was assisted by both a Mandarin and Cantonese interpreter.
On 14 March 2025, the applicant filed a claim seeking refund of a bond, alleging that the landlord had failed to lodge the bond, had failed to provide a written agreement, and had breached their right to reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy.
On 31 March 2025, the matter was set down for a hearing to determine whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claims.
The property is rented on a room-by-room basis. There are two claims arising from the same property. One is made by the applicant and the other by a different occupant. Both the applicant and the other occupant reside at the property with the respondent. In each case the nature of the occupancy appears to be the same, and the jurisdictional issues in both matters have been considered together.
At the outset of the hearing, the respondent stated that the property was their principal place of residence which they shared with the applicants. The Respondent stated they therefore believed they did not have a landlord tenant relationship that came under the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Law
In section 77 of the Act provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies.
Section 2(1) of the Act defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. The terms ’residential premises’, ‘tenancy’, and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined as: Residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful. Tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy. Tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises; and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement.
Section 4 of the Act provided that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Section 5 of the Act sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act.
Under section 10 of the Act the party challenging the jurisdiction of the Tribunal must establish that one of the exclusions in section 5 apply.
Section 8 of the Act provided that where then Act is excluded the parties can contract back into some of all of the Act.
Section 5(1)(n) of the Act states that the Act does not apply: Where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by the landlord’s or owner’s family.
A boarding house is defined in section 66(b) of the Act as residential premises containing one or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants of the boarding house and occupied or intended to be occupied by at least six tenants at any one time.
In the case of Musson v Dobrisek DC Lower Hutt, CIV 2006-032-36, 05 May 2006, the Court held that “principally” referred to the main use of the premises, not the relative duration of occupation by the landlord.
The Court stated the property must continue to be used predominantly as a place of residence by the landlord, owner, or their family.
Although the landlord will share the property with others, their use or enjoyment of the property must be greater than the other occupants.
When determining whether the Act is excluded, the Tribunal will objectively assess the substance of the agreement between the parties rather than the labels they have applied. Facts
On 07 February 2025, the parties entered into an oral agreement under which the respondent granted the applicant the right to occupy a room and share the facilities for $300.00 per week. The rent includes power and internet. The applicant paid a two-week bond. Respondent
The property is a single dwelling which consists of six bedrooms – three bedrooms have an ensuite, and three do not. There is a main bathroom with two toilets used by the occupants of the three rooms without an ensuite.
There is a dining/lounge room, and a second lounge.
There are four “cooking spaces” consisting of the main kitchen, a second smaller secondary kitchen nearby, an outside gas stove, and an outside BBQ. The main and smaller kitchens are both fully functioning kitchens and are located near to the dining / lounge area.
The respondent stated that they occupied one of the rooms with an ensuite.
The other five rooms were usually occupied by one person at a time. The respondent states the usual number of occupants at the property was five, excluding themselves. However, the respondent states earlier this year, a mother and their son had temporarily occupied one of the ensuite bedrooms for a fortnight, briefly increasing the number of occupants to six.
The respondent stated that there was one laundry shared by all occupants.
They further stated the property had a dining room/lounge area nearby to the main kitchen and smaller kitchen, and separate lounge both of which had a large television and could be used by all of the occupants.
The respondent states they shared the four cooking areas with all of the occupants, but mainly used the smaller inside kitchen and the outside gas stove. Applicant
The applicant stated that the property was in fact usually occupied by seven people. They stated that the respondent regularly had their partner stay over at the property with them.
The applicant accepted that the laundry was used by all occupants.
While the applicant was not barred from using the second lounge, they state they were discouraged from using it, and that the respondent preferred them to use the dining/lounge room.
The applicant stated that they had been barred from using the main kitchen, which was for the respondent’s use only. From time to time, they used the smaller secondary kitchen but mainly used the outside gas stove. There was no dispute that respondent the also used the smaller kitchen and the outdoor cooking areas. Respondents reply
The respondent denied that they had barred the applicant from using the main kitchen but accepted that they encouraged them not to use it because they did not properly clean up after themselves.
The respondent stated that they had a house rule prohibiting frying in the indoor cooking spaces, which the applicant accepted. All frying, including that done by the respondent, was to be conducted in one of the outside cooking spaces. The respondent added that they also avoided using the main kitchen, preferring to use the smaller kitchen used by the other occupants.
The respondent stated that their partner frequently travelled down from Auckland and stayed at the property. Decision
The parties entered into an oral residential tenancy agreement.
The property is not a boarding house as defined in section 66B of the Act, the property was not occupied or intended to be occupied by at least 6 or more tenants at one time.
Although the respondent shares the facilities (cooking, living, and washing) with the other occupants, they retain the ability to impose rules on how areas are used by the other occupants. I am satisfied that the landlords use, or enjoyment of the property is greater than that of the other occupants.
After considering the evidence, I am satisfied the property is principally used as a place of residence by the respondent.
The exclusion in 5(1)(n) of the Act applies. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the substantive claims made by the applicant.
There is no evidence that the parties agreed in writing to contract back into the provisions of the Act.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5193394 — Boarding House

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5193394 — Boarding House

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