What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5272462 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 5272462?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5272462?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5272462?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12335702-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5272462 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 5272462?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5272462?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5272462?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12335702-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5272462 — 14-day notice

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 27 August 2025.
On 24 May 2025 the tenant applied for reduction of a fixed-term tenancy and refund of the bond.
In the discussion which follows, I will refer to the tenant as “the flatmate” and to the landlord as “the head-tenant”. Background
The background facts are set out below: • The head-tenant is party to a residential tenancy agreement of the premises between the owner/landlord and four tenants, of whom the head- tenant is one. The tenants are related to each other. • The weekly rent under the tenancy agreement is $860.00. The tenancy is for a fixed term from 17 April 2025 to 15 April 2026. • On 17 May 2025, the head-tenant and the flatmate signed a “flat/house- sharing agreement” starting on 3 June 2025 and ending on 1 June 2026. The weekly rent payable by the flatmate was $230.00 per week. • As requested by the head-tenant, a bond of $690.00 was paid to the head- tenant on 16 May 2025 ($460.00) and 17 May 2025 ($230.00) i.e., prior to signing the flat/house sharing agreement. • The head-tenant may terminate the agreement by giving 14 days’ notice. There is no express right of termination by the flatmate, although the agreement provided that the flatmate would be bound until the head-tenant found a replacement. This may imply a right to seek early termination. • The agreement noted that rent would be paid when the flatmate moved in. On 18 May 2025 the flatmate said she was not going to move in because her existing landlord had decided not to increase her rent. She requested refund of the bond. The bond has not been refunded and the flatmate never moved in.
It follows that there is a residential tenancy agreement between the owner of the premises and four tenants, including the head-tenant. There is also a flat/house- sharing agreement between the head-tenant and the flatmate. Submissions
The flatmate says that she was misled because she thought the head-tenant was the owner: “After signing the contract, I learned that [the head-tenant] was not the homeowner but also a tenant. Upon reviewing the contract, I noticed that neither [the agent] nor the actual homeowner had signed it”.
The flatmate says that the head-tenant entered into the contract without notifying the landlord, without obtaining the landlord’s signature on the flat/house-share agreement, and without providing proof of the head-tenant’s authority to sublet. The flatmate seeks a declaration that the agreement is invalid. As I understand it, in essence the flatmate thought she was entering into a residential tenancy agreement with the owner of the premises. The head-tenant represented that she was the owner by signing the agreement as “landlord”.
Further, the flatmate says the head-tenant was sub-letting to her without the landlord’s consent and illegally charged three weeks’ bond when only two weeks’ is required for renting a room. I would like to note, I am unaware of any legal requirements relating to the amount of bond that can be requested under a flat/house-sharing arrangement.
The head-tenant said that she was legally entitled to sublet because she rented the entire property, so long as she did not exceed the maximum occupancy. Relevant Law
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) applies to every tenancy for residential purposes. A “tenancy” is a right to occupy residential premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent. A “landlord” means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under a tenancy agreement. A “tenancy agreement” means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, agrees to grant a tenancy of the premises. “Premises” includes any part of any premises.
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is excluded in certain cases. Section 5(1)(n) of the Act excludes jurisdiction where the premises 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.
In Clements v Merrett (TT North Shore, 4084295, 5 July 2017) it was submitted that flatmate arrangements, where the landlord or owner of the premises resides in the premises and shares the premises with a flatmate, are excluded by section 5(1)(n). The Tribunal rejected this conclusion because, on the facts, the tenant occupied one of two bedrooms and one of two bathrooms, with the rest of the premises shared equally between the owner and the tenant.
In Musson v Dobrisek (DC Lower Hutt, CIV-2006-032-036, 5 May 2006) it was said that the word “flatmate” does not define the nature of the legal relationship between a flatmate and a landlord and is no more than “a convenient label reflecting a functional reality”. It was also noted that flatmates meant: “...a cooperative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, all occupants are on the same footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens”.
In Landlord v Tenant [2024] NZTT 4928794 it was noted that a flatmate is described by Tenancy Services as someone who a tenant agrees may live in the premises with them and share the facilities. The High Court has similarly noted that flat shares are characterised by shared or common areas (Harding v Schellevis [2021] NZHC 1265). Analysis
The head-tenant satisfies the definition of “landlord” because she agreed to grant a right of occupation to the flatmate, in consideration for rent. It could also be said that there was a right to occupy “premises”, even though the right of occupation is only to occupy a room, because “premises” includes any part of the premises.
The arrangements do not meet the requirements of a boarding house tenancy. Although the intention was to share the facilities, the premises were not occupied or intended to be occupied by at least six tenants at any one time. The maximum number of residents and tenants permitted by the tenancy agreement is four, and there were four tenants. Therefore, if the flatmate had moved in, it appears the flat/house-share agreement would have resulted in a breach of the tenancy agreement. That would not, in my opinion, render the flat/house-share agreement legally ineffective.
On the face of it, there was a tenancy agreement between the head-tenant and the flatmate of part of the premises (a bedroom) with the rest of the premises being shared. The next question is whether section 5(1)(n) of the Act applies to exclude jurisdiction.
It is notable that the flat/house-share agreement was entered into between the head-tenant and the flatmate. The other three tenants under the residential tenancy agreement were not contracting parties. If the question is whether the premises were intended to be used principally as the head-tenant’s place of residence, then the answer must be no: the premises were to be shared by five people, including the flatmate. However, as noted, the four tenants are part of the same family. In my view, the premises were to continue to be used principally as a place of residence by the landlord (i.e., the head-tenant) and by members of the landlord’s family (i.e., the tenants) collectively. I find that section 5(1)(n) applies.
This analysis accords with the functional reality. Sharing premises with flatmates does not normally amount to an assignment or subletting of a tenancy. The head- tenant was not intending to transfer all her rights to the flatmate (an assignment) or to lease the whole or any part of the premises to her on an exclusive basis (see Brown v Nicol (TT Christchurch, 11/04214/CH, 9 August 2012)). The head- tenant remained legally entitled to possession.
I consider that exclusive occupation of one of the five bedrooms does not transform the flat/house-sharing agreement into a sub-lease. The sharing of facilities with exclusive use of individual rooms is consistent with a flat share. The distinction is that, while the tenants would remain liable to the landlord for any breach of their obligations as tenants under the Act, the flatmate would owe no such obligations.
It follows that, in my opinion, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the dispute, which I consider is between a tenant and her flatmate and not between a landlord and a tenant (section 77(1) of the Act).
The flatmate can apply to the Disputes Tribunal. The evidence I heard suggests the issues are primarily contractual. They include determining what the terms of the contract were (the parties discussed termination on two weeks’ notice before the flat/house-share agreement was signed) when the rent became payable (a handwritten clause states that the rent would be paid when the tenant moved in) whether there was misleading conduct or misrepresentation by the head-tenant, and whether there was a contractual mistake as to the nature of the agreement being signed.
The bond has not been lodged, so there should be no need to direct the Bond Centre. Name Suppression
The flatmate requested suppression. I exercise my discretion to grant suppression to both parties. I note that hearings in the Disputes Tribunal are held in private. I therefore uphold the parties’ privacy interest which I consider outweighs the public interest in a decision about jurisdiction.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5272462 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5272462 — 14-day notice

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