What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5245320 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 5245320?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245320?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245320?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12113298-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5245320 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 5245320?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245320?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245320?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12113298-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5245320 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing in the Tauranga registry on 11 July 2025.
The applicant was assisted with a Korean interpreter.
The applicant has applied for a refund of rent paid in advance. Jurisdiction
The preliminary question is whether or not the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim. At the beginning of the hearing, I explained to the parties that this was an issue that would need to be determined first.
Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental and must be decided before the Tribunal can go on to make any other findings in a case. If there is no jurisdiction, then the Tribunal cannot hear the case.
The Tribunal can only consider disputes in relation to residential tenancies which fall within the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Section 77 of the RTA relates to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and confirms that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine in accordance with the RTA any dispute that exists between a landlord and a tenant (or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant); and relates to any tenancy to which the RTA applies or to which the RTA did apply at any material time.
Section 4 of the RTA provides that the RTA applies to every ‘tenancy’ for residential purposes except where section 5 of the RTA excludes it.
Section 2 of the RTA sets out relevant definitions as follows: a. The term ‘landlord’ is defined in the following way: landlord in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement. b. The term ‘tenant’ is defined in the following way: tenant, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement. c. The term ‘tenancy’ is defined in the following way: 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. d. “Residential premises” is defined in the following way: 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. Excluded cases
Section 5 of the RTA sets out a range of situations when the tenancy will be ‘excluded’ from the RTA. Of relevance is subsection (1)(k) and (m),
Section 5(1)(k) says that the Act will not apply where the premises— (i)are intended to provide temporary or transient accommodation (such as that provided by hotels and motels), being accommodation that is ordinarily provided for periods of less than 28 days at a time; and (ii)are subject to an agreement that has been entered into for the purpose of providing temporary or transient accommodation that continues to be provided under the agreement:
Section 5(1) ((m) says that the RTA will not apply where the premises are let for the tenant’s holiday purposes. This case
The applicant says her agent made arrangements to book the respondent’s premises for her to live in when she travelled from Korea to New Zealand.
Both parties agreed the arrangements were made in writing by text message in December 2024.
The applicant came to New Zealand on 31 January 2025 on a NZ Electronic travel authority, which generally allows for travel for tourism, and I understand in the applicant’s case, allowed for her to stay in New Zealand for three months. The applicant then obtained an interim Guardian visa and then a Guardian visa on 1 July 2025.
In early March 2025 the applicant’s agent and the respondent exchanged text messages in which the applicant appears to have given notice to end her stay at the premises. The applicant vacated the premises on 21 March 2025.
The applicant seeks the balance of rent paid for the stay to be refunded to her.
The applicant called a witness, the agent that communicated with the respondent regarding the end of the applicant’s stay. The witness indicated his understanding that two weeks’ notice could be provided to end the applicant’s stay at the premises.
The applicant says she was not using the premises for holiday purposes as it was her intention to be in New Zealand for a year for her child to attend school in NZ.
The respondent says she advertises the premises on Airbnb throughout the year. In December 2024 the applicant’s agent made a booking of two weeks for the premises, which enabled him to obtain her phone number. He then cancelled the booking and contacted her directly to arrange an 81 day stay for the applicant (I understand it was then changed to 84 days but the applicant records the agreement as 86 days). The applicant acknowledged the Airbnb service was bypassed to avoid expenses.
The respondent agreed to allowing the applicant to stay and she and the agent agreed by text message to the terms of payment for the booking.
The respondent says at the commencement of the applicant’s occupation the premises was made available on Airbnb for subsequent bookings when the applicant’s stay ended.
The respondent said her intention for the premises is to list it on Airbnb throughout the year. She said there might be one visitor stay three months a year, but she generally has two separate visitors staying twice a month for five days on average.
I am not satisfied the exemption within section 5 (1)(m) (holiday purposes) applies.
I find that the evidence establishes this situation comes within the section 5(1)(k) exception.
I consider this premises was intended to provide temporary or transient accommodation to Airbnb guests, being accommodation that is ordinarily provided for periods of less than 28 days at a time; and the agreement between the parties was for the purpose of providing temporary or transient accommodation while the applicant settles in New Zealand and makes arrangements with respect to her visa status and duration of stay.
While the RTA confirms that certain circumstances become ‘excluded tenancies’, the RTA also confirms that the parties can agree to contract back into the RTA in writing. 1 There is no evidence, in the way of written agreement, that the parties in this matter contracted into the RTA.
The provisions of the RTA therefore do not apply.
By declaration I find this is a case that is excluded from the RTA and the application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Filing fee
Because the applicant has not succeeded with the claim, I have not reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
The applicant sought name suppression. The respondent did not seek name suppression.
Given I have found the RTA does not apply in this case, I do not consider there is a public interest in publishing the parties names.
I have made an order supressing both parties names.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing in the Tauranga registry on 11 July 2025.
The applicant was assisted with a Korean interpreter.
The applicant has applied for a refund of rent paid in advance. Jurisdiction
The preliminary question is whether or not the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim. At the beginning of the hearing, I explained to the parties that this was an issue that would need to be determined first.
Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental and must be decided before the Tribunal can go on to make any other findings in a case. If there is no jurisdiction, then the Tribunal cannot hear the case.
The Tribunal can only consider disputes in relation to residential tenancies which fall within the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Section 77 of the RTA relates to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and confirms that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine in accordance with the RTA any dispute that exists between a landlord and a tenant (or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant); and relates to any tenancy to which the RTA applies or to which the RTA did apply at any material time.
Section 4 of the RTA provides that the RTA applies to every ‘tenancy’ for residential purposes except where section 5 of the RTA excludes it.
Section 2 of the RTA sets out relevant definitions as follows: a. The term ‘landlord’ is defined in the following way: landlord in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement. b. The term ‘tenant’ is defined in the following way: tenant, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement. c. The term ‘tenancy’ is defined in the following way: 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. d. “Residential premises” is defined in the following way: 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. Excluded cases
Section 5 of the RTA sets out a range of situations when the tenancy will be ‘excluded’ from the RTA. Of relevance is subsection (1)(k) and (m),
Section 5(1)(k) says that the Act will not apply where the premises— (i)are intended to provide temporary or transient accommodation (such as that provided by hotels and motels), being accommodation that is ordinarily provided for periods of less than 28 days at a time; and (ii)are subject to an agreement that has been entered into for the purpose of providing temporary or transient accommodation that continues to be provided under the agreement:
Section 5(1) ((m) says that the RTA will not apply where the premises are let for the tenant’s holiday purposes. This case
The applicant says her agent made arrangements to book the respondent’s premises for her to live in when she travelled from Korea to New Zealand.
Both parties agreed the arrangements were made in writing by text message in December 2024.
The applicant came to New Zealand on 31 January 2025 on a NZ Electronic travel authority, which generally allows for travel for tourism, and I understand in the applicant’s case, allowed for her to stay in New Zealand for three months. The applicant then obtained an interim Guardian visa and then a Guardian visa on 1 July 2025.
In early March 2025 the applicant’s agent and the respondent exchanged text messages in which the applicant appears to have given notice to end her stay at the premises. The applicant vacated the premises on 21 March 2025.
The applicant seeks the balance of rent paid for the stay to be refunded to her.
The applicant called a witness, the agent that communicated with the respondent regarding the end of the applicant’s stay. The witness indicated his understanding that two weeks’ notice could be provided to end the applicant’s stay at the premises.
The applicant says she was not using the premises for holiday purposes as it was her intention to be in New Zealand for a year for her child to attend school in NZ.
The respondent says she advertises the premises on Airbnb throughout the year. In December 2024 the applicant’s agent made a booking of two weeks for the premises, which enabled him to obtain her phone number. He then cancelled the booking and contacted her directly to arrange an 81 day stay for the applicant (I understand it was then changed to 84 days but the applicant records the agreement as 86 days). The applicant acknowledged the Airbnb service was bypassed to avoid expenses.
The respondent agreed to allowing the applicant to stay and she and the agent agreed by text message to the terms of payment for the booking.
The respondent says at the commencement of the applicant’s occupation the premises was made available on Airbnb for subsequent bookings when the applicant’s stay ended.
The respondent said her intention for the premises is to list it on Airbnb throughout the year. She said there might be one visitor stay three months a year, but she generally has two separate visitors staying twice a month for five days on average.
I am not satisfied the exemption within section 5 (1)(m) (holiday purposes) applies.
I find that the evidence establishes this situation comes within the section 5(1)(k) exception.
I consider this premises was intended to provide temporary or transient accommodation to Airbnb guests, being accommodation that is ordinarily provided for periods of less than 28 days at a time; and the agreement between the parties was for the purpose of providing temporary or transient accommodation while the applicant settles in New Zealand and makes arrangements with respect to her visa status and duration of stay.
While the RTA confirms that certain circumstances become ‘excluded tenancies’, the RTA also confirms that the parties can agree to contract back into the RTA in writing. 1 There is no evidence, in the way of written agreement, that the parties in this matter contracted into the RTA.
The provisions of the RTA therefore do not apply.
By declaration I find this is a case that is excluded from the RTA and the application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Filing fee
Because the applicant has not succeeded with the claim, I have not reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
The applicant sought name suppression. The respondent did not seek name suppression.
Given I have found the RTA does not apply in this case, I do not consider there is a public interest in publishing the parties names.
I have made an order supressing both parties names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5245320 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5245320 — 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