What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5298802 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5298802?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5298802?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5298802?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12439351-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5298802 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5298802?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5298802?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5298802?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12439351-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5298802 — Exemplary damages

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine this matter under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The application is struck out accordingly.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
This decision concerns an application brought by the applicants, [The applicant/s], seeking a refund of a bond of $1,080.00 and exemplary damages for an alleged failure by the respondents, [The respondent/s], to lodge the bond with Tenancy Services as required under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The agreement between the parties was recorded in a written document headed “Flat/house – sharing agreement” that describes the respondents as the homeowner and the tenants as a flatmates. The central issue before the Tribunal is whether the living arrangement between the parties constituted a tenancy to which the RTA applies—either as a standard residential tenancy or a boarding house tenancy.
For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal finds that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the application, as the arrangement is excluded from the operation of the RTA under section 5(1)(n) and does not meet the statutory definition of a boarding house tenancy. Background
The applicants state that they occupied a bedroom on the lower level of a three- storey residential home at [Tenancy address suppressed] from 7 October 2024 to 15 June 2025, paying $360 per week in rent and a bond of $1,080.00. They say they shared the kitchen, living room, laundry, and garage with the landlord and his wife, who resided on the third level of the same property.
Upon vacating the premises, the applicants allege that the landlord initially confirmed a full bond refund would be issued but later deducted $251.00, citing damage to a shower shelf component. They further allege the landlord failed to lodge the bond with Tenancy Services and seek exemplary damages on that basis.
The respondents are the owners and residents of the property throughout the period in question. They confirm that the applicants rented a bedroom on the lower floor and had access to a bathroom and shared common facilities.
They say that the applicants were flatmates, not tenants, and that the RTA does not apply. They rely on section 5(1)(n) of the RTA, which excludes arrangements where the premises are used principally as the landlord’s residence. They also dispute the claim regarding the bond and say they acted reasonably throughout. Legal Framework •Under section 77 of the RTA, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine disputes between landlords and tenants in relation to tenancies to which the RTA applies. •However, section 5 of the RTA outlines exclusions. Relevantly, section 5(1)(n) provides that the RTA does not apply to any tenancy “where the premises, not being a boarding house, 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.” •The onus of proving that the RTA does not apply falls on the party asserting the exclusion—section 10 RTA. •The courts have confirmed that the exclusions in section 5 must be interpreted strictly (Harding v Schellevis [2021] NZHC 1265). •If a standard tenancy does not exist, the Tribunal must also consider whether the arrangement qualifies as a boarding house tenancy under section 66B. •A boarding house means residential premises occupied, or intended to be occupied, by at least six tenants at any one time. See section 66B of the RTA. Analysis
The applicants occupied part of a residential property alongside the respondents, who were in residence throughout the term of the agreement. The applicants shared essential household facilities with the landlords, including the kitchen, laundry, and common living areas. They did not have a self-contained unit with separate access, nor were they functionally independent from the household.
This arrangement falls squarely within the exclusion in section 5(1)(n). The Tribunal finds the premises continued to be used primarily as the landlord’s home, and the applicants were flatmates, not tenants.
The Tribunal also finds that the arrangement does not constitute a boarding house tenancy. There is no evidence that the premises were occupied by six or more unrelated persons, nor that the landlord was operating the home as a boarding house business. Accordingly, Part 2A of the RTA (Boarding House provisions) does not apply.
The agreement was titled a “Flat/house – sharing agreement”, and the applicants’ own description of shared facilities and co-habitation is consistent with a flatmate arrangement, not a tenancy under the RTA. Conclusion
The Tribunal finds that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not apply to the arrangement between the parties, as it falls within the exclusion in section 5(1)(n). The applicants did not occupy a self-contained or independent dwelling and instead shared household facilities with the landlords in a shared living arrangement.
The arrangement does not meet the requirements for either a standard residential tenancy or a boarding house tenancy under the RTA. Therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the matter.
It remains open to the parties to pursue resolution of their dispute in another forum, such as the Disputes Tribunal, which may be more appropriate in these circumstances. Suppression order
While the application is struck out for want of jurisdiction, the Tribunal considers it just to grant suppression under section 95A of the RTA. The names and identifying details of the parties are not to be published.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.

This decision concerns an application brought by the applicants, [The applicant/s], seeking a refund of a bond of $1,080.00 and exemplary damages for an alleged failure by the respondents, [The respondent/s], to lodge the bond with Tenancy Services as required under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

The agreement between the parties was recorded in a written document headed “Flat/house – sharing agreement” that describes the respondents as the homeowner and the tenants as a flatmates. The central issue before the Tribunal is whether the living arrangement between the parties constituted a tenancy to which the RTA applies—either as a standard residential tenancy or a boarding house tenancy.

For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal finds that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the application, as the arrangement is excluded from the operation of the RTA under section 5(1)(n) and does not meet the statutory definition of a boarding house tenancy. Background

The applicants state that they occupied a bedroom on the lower level of a three- storey residential home at [Tenancy address suppressed] from 7 October 2024 to 15 June 2025, paying $360 per week in rent and a bond of $1,080.00. They say they shared the kitchen, living room, laundry, and garage with the landlord and his wife, who resided on the third level of the same property.

Upon vacating the premises, the applicants allege that the landlord initially confirmed a full bond refund would be issued but later deducted $251.00, citing damage to a shower shelf component. They further allege the landlord failed to lodge the bond with Tenancy Services and seek exemplary damages on that basis.

The respondents are the owners and residents of the property throughout the period in question. They confirm that the applicants rented a bedroom on the lower floor and had access to a bathroom and shared common facilities.

They say that the applicants were flatmates, not tenants, and that the RTA does not apply. They rely on section 5(1)(n) of the RTA, which excludes arrangements where the premises are used principally as the landlord’s residence. They also dispute the claim regarding the bond and say they acted reasonably throughout. Legal Framework •Under section 77 of the RTA, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine disputes between landlords and tenants in relation to tenancies to which the RTA applies. •However, section 5 of the RTA outlines exclusions. Relevantly, section 5(1)(n) provides that the RTA does not apply to any tenancy “where the premises, not being a boarding house, 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.” •The onus of proving that the RTA does not apply falls on the party asserting the exclusion—section 10 RTA. •The courts have confirmed that the exclusions in section 5 must be interpreted strictly (Harding v Schellevis [2021] NZHC 1265). •If a standard tenancy does not exist, the Tribunal must also consider whether the arrangement qualifies as a boarding house tenancy under section 66B. •A boarding house means residential premises occupied, or intended to be occupied, by at least six tenants at any one time. See section 66B of the RTA. Analysis

The applicants occupied part of a residential property alongside the respondents, who were in residence throughout the term of the agreement. The applicants shared essential household facilities with the landlords, including the kitchen, laundry, and common living areas. They did not have a self-contained unit with separate access, nor were they functionally independent from the household.

This arrangement falls squarely within the exclusion in section 5(1)(n). The Tribunal finds the premises continued to be used primarily as the landlord’s home, and the applicants were flatmates, not tenants.

The Tribunal also finds that the arrangement does not constitute a boarding house tenancy. There is no evidence that the premises were occupied by six or more unrelated persons, nor that the landlord was operating the home as a boarding house business. Accordingly, Part 2A of the RTA (Boarding House provisions) does not apply.

The agreement was titled a “Flat/house – sharing agreement”, and the applicants’ own description of shared facilities and co-habitation is consistent with a flatmate arrangement, not a tenancy under the RTA. Conclusion

The Tribunal finds that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not apply to the arrangement between the parties, as it falls within the exclusion in section 5(1)(n). The applicants did not occupy a self-contained or independent dwelling and instead shared household facilities with the landlords in a shared living arrangement.

The arrangement does not meet the requirements for either a standard residential tenancy or a boarding house tenancy under the RTA. Therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the matter.

It remains open to the parties to pursue resolution of their dispute in another forum, such as the Disputes Tribunal, which may be more appropriate in these circumstances. Suppression order

While the application is struck out for want of jurisdiction, the Tribunal considers it just to grant suppression under section 95A of the RTA. The names and identifying details of the parties are not to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5298802 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5298802 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions