What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5229431 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tenancy Tribunal orders suppression of both the Tenant and the Landlord’s

How much money was awarded in case 5229431?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5229431?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5229431?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12056556-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5229431 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tenancy Tribunal orders suppression of both the Tenant and the Landlord’s

How much money was awarded in case 5229431?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5229431?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5229431?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12056556-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5229431 — Boarding House

Order

The Tenancy Tribunal orders suppression of both the Tenant and the Landlord’s names name and identifying details.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this claim.

Reasons

Only the tenant attended the hearing.
The Tribunal placed two calls to the landlord on the number provided but both calls went to voicemail. I am satisfied that the tenant’s application has been served in accordance with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and so the hearing proceeded in the landlord’s absence.
For ease of reference I have referred to the parties as the “landlord” and “tenant” in this decision even though I determine that the parties were flatmates.
The tenant said that he lived at the tenancy from September 2024 until March 2025. He paid a bond of $1,300.00 and rent of $325.00 per week.
The tenant said that he has tried multiple times to contact the landlord to ask for the return of his bond but has received no response. He seeks an order for the refund of his bond.

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear this claim?

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 all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Section 2(1) RTA 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 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act.
Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides 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 of the landlord.
The tenant said that he was introduced to the landlord by a friend. He rented one of the rooms in the property. His friend and the landlord lived there, together with two other people.
The tenant produced a copy of an agreement signed between the parties. The agreement refers to the landlord as the “head tenant” and the tenant as the “flatmate”. The landlord’s address for service was also the tenancy address.
The use of the words “head tenant” and “flatmate” are not necessarily determinative. I must consider all of the circumstances in this particular case.
Having considered the circumstances I do not consider that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this claim. I have reached this conclusion because: a. The tenancy remained the principal place of residence of the landlord as she lived in the property; b. This was a “room by room tenancy”; c. This was not a boarding house (as a boarding house is defined as having 6 or more people); and d. The agreement between the parties is more in the manner of a “flatmate” agreement as the agreement details matters that would not normally be covered in a landlord/tenant relationship such as visitors and chores.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the tenant’s claim.
The Tenant is able to file his claim in the Disputes Tribunal.
As I have determined that the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction there has been no resolution of the dispute between the parties. I have therefore made orders suppressing the parties’ names and identifying details.

Order

The Tenancy Tribunal orders suppression of both the Tenant and the Landlord’s names name and identifying details.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this claim.

Reasons

Only the tenant attended the hearing.
The Tribunal placed two calls to the landlord on the number provided but both calls went to voicemail. I am satisfied that the tenant’s application has been served in accordance with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and so the hearing proceeded in the landlord’s absence.
For ease of reference I have referred to the parties as the “landlord” and “tenant” in this decision even though I determine that the parties were flatmates.
The tenant said that he lived at the tenancy from September 2024 until March 2025. He paid a bond of $1,300.00 and rent of $325.00 per week.
The tenant said that he has tried multiple times to contact the landlord to ask for the return of his bond but has received no response. He seeks an order for the refund of his bond.

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear this claim?

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 all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Section 2(1) RTA 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 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act.
Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides 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 of the landlord.
The tenant said that he was introduced to the landlord by a friend. He rented one of the rooms in the property. His friend and the landlord lived there, together with two other people.
The tenant produced a copy of an agreement signed between the parties. The agreement refers to the landlord as the “head tenant” and the tenant as the “flatmate”. The landlord’s address for service was also the tenancy address.
The use of the words “head tenant” and “flatmate” are not necessarily determinative. I must consider all of the circumstances in this particular case.
Having considered the circumstances I do not consider that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this claim. I have reached this conclusion because: a. The tenancy remained the principal place of residence of the landlord as she lived in the property; b. This was a “room by room tenancy”; c. This was not a boarding house (as a boarding house is defined as having 6 or more people); and d. The agreement between the parties is more in the manner of a “flatmate” agreement as the agreement details matters that would not normally be covered in a landlord/tenant relationship such as visitors and chores.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the tenant’s claim.
The Tenant is able to file his claim in the Disputes Tribunal.
As I have determined that the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction there has been no resolution of the dispute between the parties. I have therefore made orders suppressing the parties’ names and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5229431 — Boarding House

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5229431 — Boarding House

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear this claim?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear this claim?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions