What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5224977 about?

The tribunal order states: Both parties’ names along with the identifying details and the tenancy

How much money was awarded in case 5224977?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5224977?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5224977?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12374323-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5224977 about?

The tribunal order states: Both parties’ names along with the identifying details and the tenancy

How much money was awarded in case 5224977?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5224977?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5224977?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12374323-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5224977 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Both parties’ names along with the identifying details and the tenancy address are suppressed.
The Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear and consider the application and the matter is struck out.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. The matter had been previously adjourned by another adjudicator to obtain the assistance of an interpreter before any hearing.
The court appointed Turkish interpreter did not take the calls made to him at the commencement and early in the hearing.
The applicant was willing and able to continue without the assistance of the interpreter. His flexibility is appreciated.
The applicant wants his bond returned.
The respondent claims this was not a residential tenancy that this Tribunal has jurisdiction for.
The matter was adjourned open for the respondent to send contract information relating to his tenancy and this arrangement.
As I indicated in my adjournment order dated 13 August 2025 there is a preliminary issue as to whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this claim. That needs to be resolved before any substantive claim is determined.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute between a landlord and a tenant, and/or a guarantor of a tenant, that relates to a residential tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies (see section 77, RTA).
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine disputes between parties other than those in a landlord and tenant relationship.
The key issue here is whether [the claimed tenant] was a tenant and [the claimed landlord] the landlord, or whether the parties were flatmates. Prior Tenancy agreement
On 22 December 2023 [the claimed landlord] signed a residential tenancy agreement which named him as tenant of in a tenancy which commenced that same day. That tenancy agreement prohibits [the claimed landlord] from subletting the tenancy or otherwise parting with possession without the written consent of the landlord. However, the tenancy agreement does allow for three adults and one child to occupy the premises. Flat sharing agreement
[The claimed tenant] saw the accommodation advertised on Facebook Marketplace and contacted [the claimed landlord]. The actual advertisement was not available. The parties engaged and agreed basic terms. A written agreement was promised from the respondent in early messaging but one was never presented or concluded. The basic terms of weekly rent and bond were agreed, and the applicant moved in on, or around, 16 February 2025. Subsequently, after the hearing and as provided for, the respondent provided a redacted copy of a previous Flat/house sharing agreement at this premises, naming him as head tenant. This confirms previous such agreements and while not binding here, in the absence of any written agreement between these parties, it is considered of some use in at least confirming previous intent. Some consistency between the terms in the previous written agreement and any verbal agreements here exist. It was a failure of the respondent to provide a written agreement as promised. The short duration of this arrangement meant any delayed execution of a written agreement never eventuated.
[The claimed landlord] disputes [the claimed tenant] was ever more than a flatmate.
Section 2, RTA defines a landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, as the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement. A tenant is the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement.
A tenant is someone who rents a property directly from a landlord and who usually has a written tenancy agreement which records that they are the tenant. A flatmate is someone who lives with a tenant, but their name does not appear on the tenancy agreement. Flatmates are not responsible to the landlord for rent and the state of the property. Instead, they are responsible to the tenant for their share of the rent and other outgoings.
Here [the claimed landlord] is the grantee or tenant of the tenancy under the tenancy agreement of December 2023. He is not the grantor or landlord of the tenancy. The method of advertising the room and later actions of [the claimed landlord], along with previous executed written flat/house sharing agreements, establishes it as more than likely it was intended that [the claimed tenant] was a flatmate of [the claimed landlord]. For him to be a tenant the landlord would have had to agree to that change to the tenancy agreement. There is no evidence that this is the case.
On balance, I consider the arrangement between the parties was not a tenancy agreement but a flatting arrangement. Therefore the Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to determine the application.
The application is struck out. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states, regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
[The claimed tenant] has not been successful in his claim within this jurisdiction. The appropriate resolution pathway is considered to be the Disputes Tribunal and any order from that Tribunal is not public.
After considering the interests of the parties and the public interest, as well as the lack of jurisdiction, I order suppression of the names and details of all parties. I do not consider [the claimed tenant] has understood the jurisdictional issue in bringing this claim to the Tenancy Tribunal.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. The matter had been previously adjourned by another adjudicator to obtain the assistance of an interpreter before any hearing.

The court appointed Turkish interpreter did not take the calls made to him at the commencement and early in the hearing.

The applicant was willing and able to continue without the assistance of the interpreter. His flexibility is appreciated.

The applicant wants his bond returned.

The respondent claims this was not a residential tenancy that this Tribunal has jurisdiction for.

The matter was adjourned open for the respondent to send contract information relating to his tenancy and this arrangement.

As I indicated in my adjournment order dated 13 August 2025 there is a preliminary issue as to whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this claim. That needs to be resolved before any substantive claim is determined.

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute between a landlord and a tenant, and/or a guarantor of a tenant, that relates to a residential tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies (see section 77, RTA).

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine disputes between parties other than those in a landlord and tenant relationship.

The key issue here is whether [the claimed tenant] was a tenant and [the claimed landlord] the landlord, or whether the parties were flatmates. Prior Tenancy agreement

On 22 December 2023 [the claimed landlord] signed a residential tenancy agreement which named him as tenant of in a tenancy which commenced that same day. That tenancy agreement prohibits [the claimed landlord] from subletting the tenancy or otherwise parting with possession without the written consent of the landlord. However, the tenancy agreement does allow for three adults and one child to occupy the premises. Flat sharing agreement

[The claimed tenant] saw the accommodation advertised on Facebook Marketplace and contacted [the claimed landlord]. The actual advertisement was not available. The parties engaged and agreed basic terms. A written agreement was promised from the respondent in early messaging but one was never presented or concluded. The basic terms of weekly rent and bond were agreed, and the applicant moved in on, or around, 16 February 2025. Subsequently, after the hearing and as provided for, the respondent provided a redacted copy of a previous Flat/house sharing agreement at this premises, naming him as head tenant. This confirms previous such agreements and while not binding here, in the absence of any written agreement between these parties, it is considered of some use in at least confirming previous intent. Some consistency between the terms in the previous written agreement and any verbal agreements here exist. It was a failure of the respondent to provide a written agreement as promised. The short duration of this arrangement meant any delayed execution of a written agreement never eventuated.

[The claimed landlord] disputes [the claimed tenant] was ever more than a flatmate.

Section 2, RTA defines a landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, as the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement. A tenant is the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement.

A tenant is someone who rents a property directly from a landlord and who usually has a written tenancy agreement which records that they are the tenant. A flatmate is someone who lives with a tenant, but their name does not appear on the tenancy agreement. Flatmates are not responsible to the landlord for rent and the state of the property. Instead, they are responsible to the tenant for their share of the rent and other outgoings.

Here [the claimed landlord] is the grantee or tenant of the tenancy under the tenancy agreement of December 2023. He is not the grantor or landlord of the tenancy. The method of advertising the room and later actions of [the claimed landlord], along with previous executed written flat/house sharing agreements, establishes it as more than likely it was intended that [the claimed tenant] was a flatmate of [the claimed landlord]. For him to be a tenant the landlord would have had to agree to that change to the tenancy agreement. There is no evidence that this is the case.

On balance, I consider the arrangement between the parties was not a tenancy agreement but a flatting arrangement. Therefore the Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to determine the application.

The application is struck out. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states, regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

[The claimed tenant] has not been successful in his claim within this jurisdiction. The appropriate resolution pathway is considered to be the Disputes Tribunal and any order from that Tribunal is not public.

After considering the interests of the parties and the public interest, as well as the lack of jurisdiction, I order suppression of the names and details of all parties. I do not consider [the claimed tenant] has understood the jurisdictional issue in bringing this claim to the Tenancy Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5224977 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5224977 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions