What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5299887 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 5299887?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5299887?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5299887?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12457977-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5299887 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 5299887?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5299887?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5299887?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12457977-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5299887 — Boarding House

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the respondent’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
By way of declaration, the tenancy is an excluded tenancy under section 5(1)(n) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Tribunal accordingly has no jurisdiction to determine the dispute.
The application is struck out.

Reasons

Both parties attended the teleconference hearing.
Ms Sorenson has applied for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. The Tribunal was initially required to decide whether it had jurisdiction to hear the claims.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims?

Generally speaking, the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided. See section 4 RTA.
Section 5 of the RTA specifies the situations in which the application of the RTA is excluded.
Section 5(1)(n) RTA 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 or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.
The written agreement between the parties dated 23 February 2025, a copy of which was provided, indicated that Ms Sorenson was to rent a room in the respondent’s flat and share power bills equally monthly with the respondent. There was provision in the agreement for a bond of 2 weeks rent to be lodged with Tenancy Services.
During the hearing, both parties confirmed that the respondent is the owner of the premises and that both Ms Sorenson and the respondent co-habited at the flat at the same time. Ms Sorensen said she had her own bedroom and had use of communal facilities such as the kitchen, laundry, dining room, lounge and bathroom. The respondent also had her own bedroom at the flat, in which she lived as her main residence, according to both parties. Both parties also confirmed that nobody else lived at the premises during Ms Sorenson’s tenancy there. The respondent confirmed that the flat was not a boarding house. This was not disputed by Ms Sorenson.
Given the evidence, I find this premises is not a boarding house as defined by section 66B the RTA.
I find that the evidence that both Ms Sorenson and the respondent co-habited in the same flat, owned by the respondent, that both parties shared communal facilities such as the kitchen, bathroom, laundry, dining room and lounge, and that the respondent owner lived in the flat as her principal residence, shows it is likely that the premises continued to be used principally as a place of residence by the owner of the premises during the tenancy. As such, this tenancy is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
As the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the claims, the claims are struck out.
The applicant can obtain advice as to the appropriate forum to address this dispute. Filing fee
As the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the claims and the claims are struck out, I do not grant reimbursement of the filing fee to the applicant. Suppression
The respondent requested name suppression. The applicant did not request name suppression.
Section 95A(4) RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
As I find the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the claim, and the claims are struck out, I find the respondent’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing her name. Therefore, the respondent’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the respondent’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
By way of declaration, the tenancy is an excluded tenancy under section 5(1)(n) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Tribunal accordingly has no jurisdiction to determine the dispute.
The application is struck out.

Reasons

Both parties attended the teleconference hearing.
Ms Sorenson has applied for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. The Tribunal was initially required to decide whether it had jurisdiction to hear the claims.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims?

Generally speaking, the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided. See section 4 RTA.
Section 5 of the RTA specifies the situations in which the application of the RTA is excluded.
Section 5(1)(n) RTA 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 or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.
The written agreement between the parties dated 23 February 2025, a copy of which was provided, indicated that Ms Sorenson was to rent a room in the respondent’s flat and share power bills equally monthly with the respondent. There was provision in the agreement for a bond of 2 weeks rent to be lodged with Tenancy Services.
During the hearing, both parties confirmed that the respondent is the owner of the premises and that both Ms Sorenson and the respondent co-habited at the flat at the same time. Ms Sorensen said she had her own bedroom and had use of communal facilities such as the kitchen, laundry, dining room, lounge and bathroom. The respondent also had her own bedroom at the flat, in which she lived as her main residence, according to both parties. Both parties also confirmed that nobody else lived at the premises during Ms Sorenson’s tenancy there. The respondent confirmed that the flat was not a boarding house. This was not disputed by Ms Sorenson.
Given the evidence, I find this premises is not a boarding house as defined by section 66B the RTA.
I find that the evidence that both Ms Sorenson and the respondent co-habited in the same flat, owned by the respondent, that both parties shared communal facilities such as the kitchen, bathroom, laundry, dining room and lounge, and that the respondent owner lived in the flat as her principal residence, shows it is likely that the premises continued to be used principally as a place of residence by the owner of the premises during the tenancy. As such, this tenancy is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
As the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the claims, the claims are struck out.
The applicant can obtain advice as to the appropriate forum to address this dispute. Filing fee
As the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the claims and the claims are struck out, I do not grant reimbursement of the filing fee to the applicant. Suppression
The respondent requested name suppression. The applicant did not request name suppression.
Section 95A(4) RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
As I find the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the claim, and the claims are struck out, I find the respondent’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing her name. Therefore, the respondent’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5299887 — Boarding House

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5299887 — Boarding House

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions