What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5305443 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5305443?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5305443?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5305443?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12499199-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5305443 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5305443?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5305443?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5305443?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12499199-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5305443 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by phone.

On 21 July 2025 the tenant applied for refund of her bond of $920.

In the discussion that follows I will refer to the tenant as “the flatmate” and to the landlord as “the head-tenant”. Background

The flatmate was overseas when she responded to an advertisement on Facebook Marketplace to rent a room in Auckland.

On 10 June 2025 the parties entered into a “Room Renting Agreement” which provided that the head-tenant would rent a room to the flatmate from 18 June 2025 for a fixed term period ending on 18 September 2025 after which the arrangement would continue on a periodic basis with a two week written notice period.

The flatmate was to pay rent of $230 every Wednesday, one week in advance, and a bond of $920.00 which was to be fully refunded if there was no damage to the property done by the tenant, no late weekly rent payments and not late bill payments.

The head-tenant continued to live in the property.

The flatmate paid the bond on 11 June 2025 and moved in on 18 June 2025.

Issues arose between the parties (the details of which are in dispute) and the tenant left the property on 30 June 2025.

The head-tenant says that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim because they were not landlord and tenant. The head-tenant says that he rents the property from a property management company, is not a landlord, and is simply renting a room to the flatmate.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear this claim?

Section 77(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlord and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies.

The RTA defines a tenant as someone who is granted a tenancy under a tenancy agreement.

Flatmates are not a party to the tenancy agreement but will usually have a separate arrangement with the head-tenant.

This is the case here. The head-tenant is the tenant under a tenancy agreement with a property management company acting as agent for the owner. He continues to live in the property. The flatmate came to live in the property under a separate “Room Renting” agreement. The parties are not “landlord” and “tenant”.

Sometimes a tenant will sublet premises and become a sub-landlord but that is not the case where the original tenant continues to live in the property (see section 5(1)(n) RTA).

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim. The flatmate may wish to file her claim with the Disputes Tribunal.

As the Tribunal has not made any substantive determinations, the parties’ names and identifying details are suppressed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by phone.

On 21 July 2025 the tenant applied for refund of her bond of $920.

In the discussion that follows I will refer to the tenant as “the flatmate” and to the landlord as “the head-tenant”. Background

The flatmate was overseas when she responded to an advertisement on Facebook Marketplace to rent a room in Auckland.

The head-tenant continued to live in the property.

The flatmate paid the bond on 11 June 2025 and moved in on 18 June 2025.

Issues arose between the parties (the details of which are in dispute) and the tenant left the property on 30 June 2025.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear this claim?

Section 77(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlord and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies.

The RTA defines a tenant as someone who is granted a tenancy under a tenancy agreement.

Flatmates are not a party to the tenancy agreement but will usually have a separate arrangement with the head-tenant.

Sometimes a tenant will sublet premises and become a sub-landlord but that is not the case where the original tenant continues to live in the property (see section 5(1)(n) RTA).

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim. The flatmate may wish to file her claim with the Disputes Tribunal.

As the Tribunal has not made any substantive determinations, the parties’ names and identifying details are suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5305443 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5305443 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear this claim?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear this claim?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions