What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5204313 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 5204313?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5204313?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5204313?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12137155-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5204313 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 5204313?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5204313?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5204313?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12137155-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

54 Ronayne Street, Parnell, Auckland 1010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5204313 — Rent arrears

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 Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the case.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 16 July 2025.

BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE

On 14 January 2025, the applicant contacted the respondent enquiring about a room available for rent at the tenancy address. The respondent replied with details about the room and rent, which was $295.00 per week, including utilities.
On 16 January 2025, a video call was held so the applicant could view the room and rest of the premises.
On 19 January 2025, the applicant advised the respondent that they would like to rent the room and the respondent confirmed that they would like to applicant to move into the room. The respondent sent the applicant an agreement titled “Flat/house – sharing agreement” (the agreement).
The agreement is not signed by either party and the applicant’s details are not recorded under the heading “Flatmate details.” The respondent’s details are recorded under the heading “Head tenant details.”
The parties continued correspondence and agreed that the applicant would move into the room on 9 February 2025 and pay $590.00 being one weeks rent in advance and $295.00 towards the bond. It was agreed the applicant would top up the bond by a further $590.00 at a later date, which they did on 18 February 2025.
As it turned out, the applicant did not arrive in New Zealand on 9 February 2025 due to a delay in their flight from Germany. The applicant rescheduled their flight for a future date of 24 February 2025, but was taken to hospital on this date and unable to make their flight.
Due to the change of plans regarding the date of arrival of the applicant, the respondent advised the applicant on 25 February 2025 that they were cancelling the agreement by providing one months’ notice pursuant to the terms of the agreement.
The applicant claims they paid a total of $1,180.00 to the respondent, which means they paid from 9 February 2025 – 9 March 2025. Despite paying rent up to 8 March 2025, the applicant claims they were not able to live in the premises when they eventually arrived in New Zealand and had to organise alternative accommodation.
The applicant claims they should only be liable to rent up to 25 February 2025 ($716.42), which is the date the respondent cancelled the agreement. The applicant seeks an order that the respondent pay them $463.58.
The respondent claims the terms of the agreement permitted either party to cancel the agreement by providing one months’ notice. The agreement was cancelled by the respondent on 25 February and therefore, the respondent claims the applicant is responsible for paying rent up to 25 March 2025. The respondent claims the applicant owes them rent arrears of $716.43.
The respondent gave evidence that they have lived in the premises for three years. The premises has five bedrooms and three bathrooms. The room that the applicant was going to live in shared one bathroom with two other rooms.
All utilities are shared equally between five occupants. The kitchen, dining and living room are shared by everyone. There is one power and water meter for the entire premises.
There is one main door into the premises, which everyone uses to enter and exit.

JURISDICTION

Before the Tribunal can determine the dispute between the parties, it must first be satisfied that it has jurisdiction to hear the claims.
Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.
Section 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. The definition includes a prospective landlord.
Section 2(1) RTA defines a tenant as the grantee of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. The definition includes a prospective tenant.
Residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence. 1 Tenancy in relation to any residential premises means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent. 2
The applicant was a prospective tenant who intended to live in a residential house. They paid the respondent $1,180.00, which included $590.00 for a bond and two payments of $295.00 for rent. This sounds like a residential tenancy.
Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act.
Section 5(1)(n) states the RTA 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 any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.”
When determining whether the RTA is excluded, the Tribunal considers the substance of the agreement between the parties rather than the labels they have applied. The fact that the respondent advertised the property on TradeMe under “Flatmates Wanted” is not determinative. Neither is the fact that the agreement is titled “Flat/house sharing agreement.” The Tribunal looks behind labels to establish the true nature of the living situation.
In Musson v Dobrisek & Ors DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006-032-36, the District Court considered tenancy premises where the owner lived in one bedroom and rented 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2(1). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2(1). the other eight bedrooms out to people. Everyone shared the use of the kitchen, lounge and bathroom, known as the “common areas.” The District Court held that the relevant question in cases where the landlord lives at the property they also rent out, is whether the principal use of the premises is as a place of residence by the landlord. “[39]... So the question to be asked is – Is the principal use of these premises as a place of residence by the landlord? [40] Put in this way, the clear answer, on the cases of both sides, is “no.” Mr Musson occupied one bedroom out of nine, and shared the common area equally with the other occupants. Far from Mr Musson’s use of the property being “principal”, it was commensurate with that of the other occupants. [41] I consider that this interpretation reflects what I perceive to be the policy objectives of the Act. Relevantly, it is intended to govern landlord/tenant relationships which are primarily commercial. Section 5(n) appears to me intended to cover the situation of the owner or tenant of a house letting out a bedroom or bedsitting room to a tenant or sub-tenant while the principal use of the house remains accommodation for the landlord and the landlord’s family. On this reading, the exception could only apply to small scale and limited letting, because the principal use of the property would have to be as a residence for the landlord and the landlord could have only one or perhaps two properties which could be so described.”
Applying Musson, I find that the respondent’s principal use of the premises was as a place of residence for the following reasons: a. The respondent has lived in the premises for three years. They do not live in any other premises. b. The respondent lives in one bedroom and rents out the other four bedrooms. Although not a low number, it is significantly less than the eight bedrooms rented out by the respondent in Musson. c. The respondent pays $1,350.00 to rent the entire premises and rents out each bedroom for $295.00, including utilities. The respondent receives a total of $1,180.00 from renting out the four bedrooms, which is less than the rent payable for the entire premises and is calculated before any deduction for utilities. This indicates that the main purpose of the premises is to provide a principal place of residence for the respondent, rather than to generate an income.
Section 5(1)(n) RTA applies and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this case.

NAME SUPPRESSION

Neither party has been wholly or substantially successful in their claim and therefore, I am not required to grant either party name suppression. 3
I have a residual discretion to grant name suppression under section 95A(3) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public.
There is little public interest in knowing the names of the parties in this decision, as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim. I consider the interests of the parties in suppression outweighs the public interest in publication and grant both party’s request for name suppression.

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 Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the case.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 16 July 2025.

BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE

On 14 January 2025, the applicant contacted the respondent enquiring about a room available for rent at the tenancy address. The respondent replied with details about the room and rent, which was $295.00 per week, including utilities.
On 16 January 2025, a video call was held so the applicant could view the room and rest of the premises.
On 19 January 2025, the applicant advised the respondent that they would like to rent the room and the respondent confirmed that they would like to applicant to move into the room. The respondent sent the applicant an agreement titled “Flat/house – sharing agreement” (the agreement).
The agreement is not signed by either party and the applicant’s details are not recorded under the heading “Flatmate details.” The respondent’s details are recorded under the heading “Head tenant details.”
The parties continued correspondence and agreed that the applicant would move into the room on 9 February 2025 and pay $590.00 being one weeks rent in advance and $295.00 towards the bond. It was agreed the applicant would top up the bond by a further $590.00 at a later date, which they did on 18 February 2025.
As it turned out, the applicant did not arrive in New Zealand on 9 February 2025 due to a delay in their flight from Germany. The applicant rescheduled their flight for a future date of 24 February 2025, but was taken to hospital on this date and unable to make their flight.
Due to the change of plans regarding the date of arrival of the applicant, the respondent advised the applicant on 25 February 2025 that they were cancelling the agreement by providing one months’ notice pursuant to the terms of the agreement.
The applicant claims they paid a total of $1,180.00 to the respondent, which means they paid from 9 February 2025 – 9 March 2025. Despite paying rent up to 8 March 2025, the applicant claims they were not able to live in the premises when they eventually arrived in New Zealand and had to organise alternative accommodation.
The applicant claims they should only be liable to rent up to 25 February 2025 ($716.42), which is the date the respondent cancelled the agreement. The applicant seeks an order that the respondent pay them $463.58.
The respondent claims the terms of the agreement permitted either party to cancel the agreement by providing one months’ notice. The agreement was cancelled by the respondent on 25 February and therefore, the respondent claims the applicant is responsible for paying rent up to 25 March 2025. The respondent claims the applicant owes them rent arrears of $716.43.
The respondent gave evidence that they have lived in the premises for three years. The premises has five bedrooms and three bathrooms. The room that the applicant was going to live in shared one bathroom with two other rooms.
All utilities are shared equally between five occupants. The kitchen, dining and living room are shared by everyone. There is one power and water meter for the entire premises.
There is one main door into the premises, which everyone uses to enter and exit.

JURISDICTION

Before the Tribunal can determine the dispute between the parties, it must first be satisfied that it has jurisdiction to hear the claims.
Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.
Section 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. The definition includes a prospective landlord.
Section 2(1) RTA defines a tenant as the grantee of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. The definition includes a prospective tenant.
Residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence. 1 Tenancy in relation to any residential premises means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent. 2
The applicant was a prospective tenant who intended to live in a residential house. They paid the respondent $1,180.00, which included $590.00 for a bond and two payments of $295.00 for rent. This sounds like a residential tenancy.
Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act.
Section 5(1)(n) states the RTA 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 any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.”
When determining whether the RTA is excluded, the Tribunal considers the substance of the agreement between the parties rather than the labels they have applied. The fact that the respondent advertised the property on TradeMe under “Flatmates Wanted” is not determinative. Neither is the fact that the agreement is titled “Flat/house sharing agreement.” The Tribunal looks behind labels to establish the true nature of the living situation.
In Musson v Dobrisek & Ors DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006-032-36, the District Court considered tenancy premises where the owner lived in one bedroom and rented 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2(1). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2(1). the other eight bedrooms out to people. Everyone shared the use of the kitchen, lounge and bathroom, known as the “common areas.” The District Court held that the relevant question in cases where the landlord lives at the property they also rent out, is whether the principal use of the premises is as a place of residence by the landlord. “[39]... So the question to be asked is – Is the principal use of these premises as a place of residence by the landlord? [40] Put in this way, the clear answer, on the cases of both sides, is “no.” Mr Musson occupied one bedroom out of nine, and shared the common area equally with the other occupants. Far from Mr Musson’s use of the property being “principal”, it was commensurate with that of the other occupants. [41] I consider that this interpretation reflects what I perceive to be the policy objectives of the Act. Relevantly, it is intended to govern landlord/tenant relationships which are primarily commercial. Section 5(n) appears to me intended to cover the situation of the owner or tenant of a house letting out a bedroom or bedsitting room to a tenant or sub-tenant while the principal use of the house remains accommodation for the landlord and the landlord’s family. On this reading, the exception could only apply to small scale and limited letting, because the principal use of the property would have to be as a residence for the landlord and the landlord could have only one or perhaps two properties which could be so described.”
Applying Musson, I find that the respondent’s principal use of the premises was as a place of residence for the following reasons: a. The respondent has lived in the premises for three years. They do not live in any other premises. b. The respondent lives in one bedroom and rents out the other four bedrooms. Although not a low number, it is significantly less than the eight bedrooms rented out by the respondent in Musson. c. The respondent pays $1,350.00 to rent the entire premises and rents out each bedroom for $295.00, including utilities. The respondent receives a total of $1,180.00 from renting out the four bedrooms, which is less than the rent payable for the entire premises and is calculated before any deduction for utilities. This indicates that the main purpose of the premises is to provide a principal place of residence for the respondent, rather than to generate an income.
Section 5(1)(n) RTA applies and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this case.

NAME SUPPRESSION

Neither party has been wholly or substantially successful in their claim and therefore, I am not required to grant either party name suppression. 3
I have a residual discretion to grant name suppression under section 95A(3) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public.
There is little public interest in knowing the names of the parties in this decision, as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim. I consider the interests of the parties in suppression outweighs the public interest in publication and grant both party’s request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5204313 — Rent arrears at 54 Ronayne Street, Parnell, Auckland 1010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5204313 — Rent arrears at 54 Ronayne Street, Parnell, Auckland 1010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE

JURISDICTION

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE

JURISDICTION

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions