What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5308628 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the applicant and respondent’s names and

How much money was awarded in case 5308628?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5308628?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5308628?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12950456-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5308628 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the applicant and respondent’s names and

How much money was awarded in case 5308628?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5308628?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5308628?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12950456-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5308628 — Healthy homes

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the applicant and respondent’s names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

The applicant, [The applicant/s], filed an application against the respondent, [The respondent/s], seeking orders relating to bond refund, compensation, alleged breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards, and exemplary damages.
The arrangement commenced on 18 May 2025 and ended on 2 July 2025. The weekly rent was $535.00 and a bond of $1,605.00 was paid.
Before the Tribunal can consider the substantive claims raised by the applicant, it must first determine whether it has jurisdiction. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction depends on whether the arrangement between the parties was a tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) applies, or whether it was an excluded flatmate or house-sharing arrangement under section 5 of the RTA. The Applicant’s Position
The applicant says she lived alone in a separate dwelling in the downstairs area of the premises situated at [Tenancy address suppressed]. She says there were no flatmates and that she did not share any spaces with the owner or the owner’s parents.
The applicant states that she had a separate entrance and separate car park, and that she was not permitted to use any areas of the owner’s house. She says the arrangement was presented to her as a tenancy and that she paid rent and bond accordingly. The Respondent’s Position
The respondent says the arrangement was a flatmate or house-sharing arrangement in an owner-occupied family home and therefore excluded from the RTA under section 5(1)(n).
The respondent states that the property has been continuously occupied by herself and her parents for several years and that flatmates have been taken in from time to time to assist with mortgage costs.
The respondent says that although the downstairs area includes a bedroom, lounge, bathroom, laundry, and deck, it has always formed part of a single household unit with internal access connecting the two levels. She says the area was never intended or treated as a separate or self-contained tenancy.
The respondent states that internal access between levels was available and used throughout the arrangement, that family members used the downstairs lounge, bathroom, laundry, cupboards, deck, and garden, and that tools and household items were stored in downstairs areas.
The respondent says all utilities were shared, with a single set of meters and one internet connection, and that the applicant never paid utilities. Household maintenance was carried out by the family and not charged to the applicant.
The respondent relies on a signed agreement headed “Flatmate Agreement”, which names [The respondent/s] as the head tenant and [The applicant/s] as the flatmate. She says a bond was lodged only because the applicant requested it, not because a tenancy was intended.
The respondent provided photographs, utility bills, and other material supporting shared use of the premises. Relevant Law
The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine disputes only where the dispute arises out of a tenancy to which the RTA applies. Sections 77 and 82 give the Tribunal exclusive originating jurisdiction in such cases.
Section 4 provides that the RTA applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically excluded by section 5.
Section 5(1)(n) excludes arrangements where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used during the arrangement principally as a place of residence by the owner or a member of the owner’s family. This exclusion typically covers flatting or house-sharing arrangements in owner-occupied homes.
Section 10 places the onus on the party asserting that the RTA does not apply to prove the facts supporting that contention. In this case, the respondent bears that onus.
The Courts have made clear that exclusions under section 5 must be interpreted strictly. Where there is doubt, the RTA generally applies. Labels used by the parties are not determinative. The Tribunal must look at the substance of the arrangement.
In Harding v Schellevis & Ors [2021] NZHC 1265, the High Court held that even where an agreement is labelled as a flatmate or house-sharing arrangement, the RTA may still apply if the area occupied by the tenant is functionally self- contained and used exclusively by the tenant, and is not principally used as the landlord’s residence.
Conversely, where the occupant lives as part of the landlord’s household, sharing core facilities and lacking exclusive possession of a separate household unit, the exclusion in section 5(1)(n) is more likely to apply. Analysis
The key issue is whether the relevant “premises” were a separate household unit occupied exclusively by the applicant, or whether the applicant was living as part of a shared household in an owner-occupied home.
I accept that the applicant occupied the downstairs area for the duration of the arrangement and that she was often the only person sleeping in that area. However, exclusive use in practice is not the same as exclusive possession in law.
The evidence establishes that the property functioned as a single household unit. There was internal access between the upstairs and downstairs areas throughout the arrangement. Family members used the downstairs lounge, bathroom, laundry, cupboards, deck, and garden. Household belongings were stored downstairs and accessed as needed.
Utilities were not separately metered. There was one set of power, water, gas, internet, and rubbish services, all paid for by the respondent’s household. The applicant did not pay utilities or outgoings, which is consistent with flatmate arrangements rather than a self-contained tenancy.
The downstairs area was not set up or furnished as an independent rental unit. Furniture and appliances belonged to the household and were provided on a shared basis. Household maintenance was carried out by the respondent’s family.
The agreement signed by the parties is headed “Flatmate Agreement” and identifies [The respondent/s] as head tenant. While this label is not decisive, it is consistent with the factual reality of a house-sharing arrangement.
This case is distinguishable from Harding v Schellevis. Unlike the granny flat in that case, the area occupied by the applicant here was not isolated from the rest of the house, and continued to be used as part of the owner’s family home. The relevant “premises” were the whole house, not just the downstairs area.
I am satisfied that the respondent has discharged the onus under section 10 of establishing that the arrangement falls within the exclusion in section 5(1)(n). Findings on Jurisdiction
I find that the arrangement between the parties was a flatmate or house-sharing arrangement in an owner-occupied family home.
Accordingly, the RTA does not apply. The Tribunal therefore lacks jurisdiction to determine the applicant’s claims for bond refund, compensation, Healthy Homes compliance, or exemplary damages. Outcome
The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
This decision does not prevent the applicant from pursuing any remedies that may be available through other legal avenues.
This decision turns solely on jurisdiction and makes no findings on the merits of the serious allegations raised by the applicant. In these circumstances, and to ensure fairness, I am satisfied that name suppression is appropriate.

Reasons

The applicant, [The applicant/s], filed an application against the respondent, [The respondent/s], seeking orders relating to bond refund, compensation, alleged breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards, and exemplary damages.

The arrangement commenced on 18 May 2025 and ended on 2 July 2025. The weekly rent was $535.00 and a bond of $1,605.00 was paid.

Before the Tribunal can consider the substantive claims raised by the applicant, it must first determine whether it has jurisdiction. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction depends on whether the arrangement between the parties was a tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) applies, or whether it was an excluded flatmate or house-sharing arrangement under section 5 of the RTA. The Applicant’s Position

The applicant says she lived alone in a separate dwelling in the downstairs area of the premises situated at [Tenancy address suppressed]. She says there were no flatmates and that she did not share any spaces with the owner or the owner’s parents.

The applicant states that she had a separate entrance and separate car park, and that she was not permitted to use any areas of the owner’s house. She says the arrangement was presented to her as a tenancy and that she paid rent and bond accordingly. The Respondent’s Position

The respondent says the arrangement was a flatmate or house-sharing arrangement in an owner-occupied family home and therefore excluded from the RTA under section 5(1)(n).

The respondent states that the property has been continuously occupied by herself and her parents for several years and that flatmates have been taken in from time to time to assist with mortgage costs.

The respondent says that although the downstairs area includes a bedroom, lounge, bathroom, laundry, and deck, it has always formed part of a single household unit with internal access connecting the two levels. She says the area was never intended or treated as a separate or self-contained tenancy.

The respondent states that internal access between levels was available and used throughout the arrangement, that family members used the downstairs lounge, bathroom, laundry, cupboards, deck, and garden, and that tools and household items were stored in downstairs areas.

The respondent says all utilities were shared, with a single set of meters and one internet connection, and that the applicant never paid utilities. Household maintenance was carried out by the family and not charged to the applicant.

The respondent relies on a signed agreement headed “Flatmate Agreement”, which names [The respondent/s] as the head tenant and [The applicant/s] as the flatmate. She says a bond was lodged only because the applicant requested it, not because a tenancy was intended.

The respondent provided photographs, utility bills, and other material supporting shared use of the premises. Relevant Law

The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine disputes only where the dispute arises out of a tenancy to which the RTA applies. Sections 77 and 82 give the Tribunal exclusive originating jurisdiction in such cases.

Section 4 provides that the RTA applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically excluded by section 5.

Section 5(1)(n) excludes arrangements where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used during the arrangement principally as a place of residence by the owner or a member of the owner’s family. This exclusion typically covers flatting or house-sharing arrangements in owner-occupied homes.

Section 10 places the onus on the party asserting that the RTA does not apply to prove the facts supporting that contention. In this case, the respondent bears that onus.

The Courts have made clear that exclusions under section 5 must be interpreted strictly. Where there is doubt, the RTA generally applies. Labels used by the parties are not determinative. The Tribunal must look at the substance of the arrangement.

In Harding v Schellevis & Ors [2021] NZHC 1265, the High Court held that even where an agreement is labelled as a flatmate or house-sharing arrangement, the RTA may still apply if the area occupied by the tenant is functionally self- contained and used exclusively by the tenant, and is not principally used as the landlord’s residence.

Conversely, where the occupant lives as part of the landlord’s household, sharing core facilities and lacking exclusive possession of a separate household unit, the exclusion in section 5(1)(n) is more likely to apply. Analysis

The key issue is whether the relevant “premises” were a separate household unit occupied exclusively by the applicant, or whether the applicant was living as part of a shared household in an owner-occupied home.

I accept that the applicant occupied the downstairs area for the duration of the arrangement and that she was often the only person sleeping in that area. However, exclusive use in practice is not the same as exclusive possession in law.

The evidence establishes that the property functioned as a single household unit. There was internal access between the upstairs and downstairs areas throughout the arrangement. Family members used the downstairs lounge, bathroom, laundry, cupboards, deck, and garden. Household belongings were stored downstairs and accessed as needed.

Utilities were not separately metered. There was one set of power, water, gas, internet, and rubbish services, all paid for by the respondent’s household. The applicant did not pay utilities or outgoings, which is consistent with flatmate arrangements rather than a self-contained tenancy.

The downstairs area was not set up or furnished as an independent rental unit. Furniture and appliances belonged to the household and were provided on a shared basis. Household maintenance was carried out by the respondent’s family.

The agreement signed by the parties is headed “Flatmate Agreement” and identifies [The respondent/s] as head tenant. While this label is not decisive, it is consistent with the factual reality of a house-sharing arrangement.

This case is distinguishable from Harding v Schellevis. Unlike the granny flat in that case, the area occupied by the applicant here was not isolated from the rest of the house, and continued to be used as part of the owner’s family home. The relevant “premises” were the whole house, not just the downstairs area.

I am satisfied that the respondent has discharged the onus under section 10 of establishing that the arrangement falls within the exclusion in section 5(1)(n). Findings on Jurisdiction

I find that the arrangement between the parties was a flatmate or house-sharing arrangement in an owner-occupied family home.

Accordingly, the RTA does not apply. The Tribunal therefore lacks jurisdiction to determine the applicant’s claims for bond refund, compensation, Healthy Homes compliance, or exemplary damages. Outcome

The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

This decision does not prevent the applicant from pursuing any remedies that may be available through other legal avenues.

This decision turns solely on jurisdiction and makes no findings on the merits of the serious allegations raised by the applicant. In these circumstances, and to ensure fairness, I am satisfied that name suppression is appropriate.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5308628 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5308628 — Healthy homes

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