What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5273426 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5273426?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5273426?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5273426?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12004819-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5273426 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5273426?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5273426?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5273426?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12004819-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

102 Pacific Drive, Fitzherbert, Palmerston North 4410 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5273426 — Exemplary damages

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the application as it is excluded by section 5(1)(n) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant has made a claim for refund of her bond under section 22B RTA and for compensation and exemplary damages.
The respondent claimed at the hearing that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction because the applicant was a boarder and not a tenant. The respondent relied on the exclusion in section 5(1)(n) RTA which provides that the RTA shall 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.
It is therefore necessary for the Tribunal to determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s claim. Background
The parties agreed on the following relevant facts: a. The respondent placed an advertisement on Facebook and Facebook marketplace for a room in the property occupied by the respondent. b. The parties entered into an “Application/Agreement for Tenancy” recording a commencement date of 28 October 2024 and signed by the applicant on 31 October 2024 (“the agreement”). c. Amongst other things, the agreement recorded: i. “The tenancy will commence on 28/10/2024 for a fixed term.” ii. “The rent will be $225 per week.” iii. The tenant will pay a “2-weeks bond of $450”. iv. The tenant must give six weeks’ notice. v. The rent included power, wi-fi, washing machine and cooking. vi. “The tenant will be given the middle upstairs room and a separate bathroom. The tenant can use the sitting area for sitting & dining area for eating.” vii. No other person could stay in the room overnight. viii. The bed, mattress protector, desk and chair will be provided by the landlord. ix. “The bathroom will be shared with other tenant when he/she will start tenancy.” d. The property has four bedrooms. One was occupied by the respondent and his wife, one was occupied by their daughter, one by the applicant and the other by another unrelated person on the same terms as the applicant. e. The applicant had exclusive use of her room which she could lock. She had a key to the main door which was shared with all the occupants of the house. f. She shared a bathroom with the respondent. g. She shared cooking and laundry facilities with the respondent, his wife and daughter and the other occupant. h. She paid her rent to the respondent. i. The respondent was a tenant of a third party (“the owner”) pursuant to a formal tenancy agreement (“the head agreement”). j. Under the head agreement, the respondent was responsible for paying the rent to the owner. The respondent was responsible for contacting the owner for repairs. k. The respondent and his wife went overseas to attend their daughter’s wedding in December 2024. They live permanently in New Zealand and returned to the property in January and February 2024. They settled the purchase of the property in May 2025 and are now the owners. l. The tenant did not know that the respondent was not the owner of the property and that he, his wife and daughter occupied the property under the head agreement.
The respondent advised that they had had seven people occupy the two bedrooms not used by them during the four years they rented the property. They were authorised by their landlord to have boarders or flatmates.
The applicant believed that: a. The respondent was her landlord because: i. The agreement’s terminology was of landlord and tenant. ii. The agreement was called an “Agreement for Tenancy”. iii. The respondent did not disclose that he was a tenant under the head agreement and was not the owner of the property. b. The RTA and its protections applied to her tenancy. c. Her bond would be protected by being held by the Bond Centre. d. She would have recourse to the Tribunal. Discussion and decision
The issue that must be determined is whether the relationship was a flat sharing or boarding agreement of premises shared with the landlord who occupied the property with his family principally as their place of residence. If so, then the exclusion in section 5(1)(n) RTA will apply.
It has been held by the District Court that to give effect to the RTA’s true intent and meaning, the exemptions in section 5 RTA should be interpreted strictly and not liberally. Where in any proceedings before the Tribunal, any party contends that the RTA does not apply in respect of any tenancy of any residential premises, it shall be for that party to establish the facts upon which it is contended that the RTA does not apply. See section 10 RTA.
“Tenancy” is defined in section 2 RTA as “...the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent.” Under the same section of the RTA a tenancy agreement is defined as “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.” A “tenant” is defined as “the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement ...”.
A boarder is a person who lives with the owner of the premises or legal occupier and who has a licence from the owner or legal occupier to live there. Section 5(1)(n) RTA specifically excludes such boarding type arrangements from the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
In determining this issue, the Tribunal must take into account the fact the parties have recorded the nature of their relationship in writing. This can be evidence of their contractual intent. In their agreement, they have expressly agreed that the relationship was one of landlord and tenant. This may indicate an intention to contract into the terms of the RTA, although the respondent denied this at the hearing.
The fact that the parties chose to label their relationship an “Agreement for Tenancy” and called the parties landlord and tenant does not conclusively determine the nature of their relationship. It is an agreement drafted by laypeople, not lawyers or taken from the Tenancy Services website.
The issue is whether or not the relationship was, in substance, a tenancy agreement.
For the following reasons the Tribunal has determined that the applicant occupied the premises as a boarder and not as a tenant: a. The respondent and his family occupied half of the bedrooms so that the property was occupied by the respondent and his family principally as their place of residence. This is the respondent’s family home where they usually live. This is confirmed by their subsequent purchase of the property. b. The applicant had only the exclusive use of a bedroom. The applicant’s bedroom was not self-contained. She shared the use of other facilities with the landlord and his family and the other boarder. c. The respondent let the room to the applicant and was authorised to do so by the head agreement. The advertisement clearly showed a room to rent with shared facilities. d. If he did not have any boarders, the respondent remained liable to the owner for the full rent. e. Some terms of the agreement were inconsistent with the provisions of the RTA, such as the required notice period and the prohibition against anyone staying overnight. While these provisions would be void if the RTA applied, it shows an intention that the RTA was not to apply. f. Other provisions in the agreement would be unusual in a tenancy agreement but are consistent with a boarding arrangement, such as the inclusion of power, wi-fi, washing machine and cooking appliances, and the provision of a bed and desk. g. The provision for a bond is not unusual in shared living arrangements with boarders.
As discussed at the hearing, this means that the appropriate venue for a determination of the issues arising between the applicant and the respondent is the Disputes Tribunal and not the Tenancy Tribunal which lacks jurisdiction.
As the Tribunal has determined that it does not have jurisdiction, only the Tribunal’s decision has any public interest and the details of the parties are to be suppressed.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the application as it is excluded by section 5(1)(n) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant has made a claim for refund of her bond under section 22B RTA and for compensation and exemplary damages.
The respondent claimed at the hearing that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction because the applicant was a boarder and not a tenant. The respondent relied on the exclusion in section 5(1)(n) RTA which provides that the RTA shall 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.
It is therefore necessary for the Tribunal to determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s claim. Background
The parties agreed on the following relevant facts: a. The respondent placed an advertisement on Facebook and Facebook marketplace for a room in the property occupied by the respondent. b. The parties entered into an “Application/Agreement for Tenancy” recording a commencement date of 28 October 2024 and signed by the applicant on 31 October 2024 (“the agreement”). c. Amongst other things, the agreement recorded: i. “The tenancy will commence on 28/10/2024 for a fixed term.” ii. “The rent will be $225 per week.” iii. The tenant will pay a “2-weeks bond of $450”. iv. The tenant must give six weeks’ notice. v. The rent included power, wi-fi, washing machine and cooking. vi. “The tenant will be given the middle upstairs room and a separate bathroom. The tenant can use the sitting area for sitting & dining area for eating.” vii. No other person could stay in the room overnight. viii. The bed, mattress protector, desk and chair will be provided by the landlord. ix. “The bathroom will be shared with other tenant when he/she will start tenancy.” d. The property has four bedrooms. One was occupied by the respondent and his wife, one was occupied by their daughter, one by the applicant and the other by another unrelated person on the same terms as the applicant. e. The applicant had exclusive use of her room which she could lock. She had a key to the main door which was shared with all the occupants of the house. f. She shared a bathroom with the respondent. g. She shared cooking and laundry facilities with the respondent, his wife and daughter and the other occupant. h. She paid her rent to the respondent. i. The respondent was a tenant of a third party (“the owner”) pursuant to a formal tenancy agreement (“the head agreement”). j. Under the head agreement, the respondent was responsible for paying the rent to the owner. The respondent was responsible for contacting the owner for repairs. k. The respondent and his wife went overseas to attend their daughter’s wedding in December 2024. They live permanently in New Zealand and returned to the property in January and February 2024. They settled the purchase of the property in May 2025 and are now the owners. l. The tenant did not know that the respondent was not the owner of the property and that he, his wife and daughter occupied the property under the head agreement.
The respondent advised that they had had seven people occupy the two bedrooms not used by them during the four years they rented the property. They were authorised by their landlord to have boarders or flatmates.
The applicant believed that: a. The respondent was her landlord because: i. The agreement’s terminology was of landlord and tenant. ii. The agreement was called an “Agreement for Tenancy”. iii. The respondent did not disclose that he was a tenant under the head agreement and was not the owner of the property. b. The RTA and its protections applied to her tenancy. c. Her bond would be protected by being held by the Bond Centre. d. She would have recourse to the Tribunal. Discussion and decision
The issue that must be determined is whether the relationship was a flat sharing or boarding agreement of premises shared with the landlord who occupied the property with his family principally as their place of residence. If so, then the exclusion in section 5(1)(n) RTA will apply.
It has been held by the District Court that to give effect to the RTA’s true intent and meaning, the exemptions in section 5 RTA should be interpreted strictly and not liberally. Where in any proceedings before the Tribunal, any party contends that the RTA does not apply in respect of any tenancy of any residential premises, it shall be for that party to establish the facts upon which it is contended that the RTA does not apply. See section 10 RTA.
“Tenancy” is defined in section 2 RTA as “...the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent.” Under the same section of the RTA a tenancy agreement is defined as “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.” A “tenant” is defined as “the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement ...”.
A boarder is a person who lives with the owner of the premises or legal occupier and who has a licence from the owner or legal occupier to live there. Section 5(1)(n) RTA specifically excludes such boarding type arrangements from the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
In determining this issue, the Tribunal must take into account the fact the parties have recorded the nature of their relationship in writing. This can be evidence of their contractual intent. In their agreement, they have expressly agreed that the relationship was one of landlord and tenant. This may indicate an intention to contract into the terms of the RTA, although the respondent denied this at the hearing.
The fact that the parties chose to label their relationship an “Agreement for Tenancy” and called the parties landlord and tenant does not conclusively determine the nature of their relationship. It is an agreement drafted by laypeople, not lawyers or taken from the Tenancy Services website.
The issue is whether or not the relationship was, in substance, a tenancy agreement.
For the following reasons the Tribunal has determined that the applicant occupied the premises as a boarder and not as a tenant: a. The respondent and his family occupied half of the bedrooms so that the property was occupied by the respondent and his family principally as their place of residence. This is the respondent’s family home where they usually live. This is confirmed by their subsequent purchase of the property. b. The applicant had only the exclusive use of a bedroom. The applicant’s bedroom was not self-contained. She shared the use of other facilities with the landlord and his family and the other boarder. c. The respondent let the room to the applicant and was authorised to do so by the head agreement. The advertisement clearly showed a room to rent with shared facilities. d. If he did not have any boarders, the respondent remained liable to the owner for the full rent. e. Some terms of the agreement were inconsistent with the provisions of the RTA, such as the required notice period and the prohibition against anyone staying overnight. While these provisions would be void if the RTA applied, it shows an intention that the RTA was not to apply. f. Other provisions in the agreement would be unusual in a tenancy agreement but are consistent with a boarding arrangement, such as the inclusion of power, wi-fi, washing machine and cooking appliances, and the provision of a bed and desk. g. The provision for a bond is not unusual in shared living arrangements with boarders.
As discussed at the hearing, this means that the appropriate venue for a determination of the issues arising between the applicant and the respondent is the Disputes Tribunal and not the Tenancy Tribunal which lacks jurisdiction.
As the Tribunal has determined that it does not have jurisdiction, only the Tribunal’s decision has any public interest and the details of the parties are to be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5273426 — Exemplary damages at 102 Pacific Drive, Fitzherbert, Palmerston North 4410

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5273426 — Exemplary damages at 102 Pacific Drive, Fitzherbert, Palmerston North 4410

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