What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5316113 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 5316113?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316113?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316113?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12735141-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5316113 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 5316113?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316113?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316113?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12735141-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 George Laurenson Lane, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5316113 — Boarding House

Order

The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 18 November 2025.
The premises at 2 George Laurenson Lane, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 consists of five bedrooms. The respondent signed a tenancy agreement with the owner for the entire premises. The respondent lived in the premises and rented out four bedrooms to help pay the rent due under the tenancy agreement. The applicant rented one of the bedrooms from 25 February 2025 – 27 July 2025.
The parties signed a “flat/house sharing agreement”, which records the respondent as “head tenant” and applicant as “flatmate.” The applicant paid $280.00 per week in rent and a bond of $840.00. The applicant had exclusive use of their bedroom but shared the bathroom, kitchen, dining room and lounge with other people living in the premises. The utilities were shared equally between all occupants.
When the applicant left the premises, the respondent deducted $50.00 form the bond. The applicant seeks to challenge this deduction.
The first hurdle the applicant must overcome is to establish that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim. The law
Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.
Section 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. Residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence. Tenancy in relation to any residential premises means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent. The applicant lived in a residential house and paid the respondent $280.00 per week. This sounds like a residential tenancy.
Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances in which a tenancy is excluded from the Act.
Section 5(1)(n) states the RTA does 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.”
Section 10 RTA provides that, where a party to proceedings contends the RTA does not apply, they must establish the facts supporting their contention. In other words, the respondent has the burden of proving the RTA does not apply to the living arrangement involving the applicant.
When determining whether the RTA applies, the Tribunal considers the substance of the agreement between the parties rather than the labels they have applied. The fact that the parties signed a “flat/house – sharing agreement” and not a tenant agreement is not determinative. The Tribunal looks behind labels to establish the true nature of the living situation.
In Musson v Dobrisek & Ors DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006-032-36, the District Court considered tenancy premises where the owner lived in one bedroom and rented the other eight bedrooms out to people. Everyone shared the use of the kitchen, lounge and bathroom, known as the “common areas.” The District Court held that the relevant question in cases where the landlord lives at the property they also rent out, is whether the principal use of the premises is as a place of residence by the landlord. “[39]... So the question to be asked is – Is the principal use of these premises as a place of residence by the landlord? [40] Put in this way, the clear answer, on the cases of both sides, is “no.” Mr Musson occupied one bedroom out of nine, and shared the common area equally with the other occupants. Far from Mr Musson’s use of the property being “principal”, it was commensurate with that of the other occupants. [41] I consider that this interpretation reflects what I perceive to be the policy objectives of the Act. Relevantly, it is intended to govern landlord/tenant relationships which are primarily commercial. Section 5(n) appears to me intended to cover the situation of the owner or tenant of a house letting out a bedroom or bedsitting room to a tenant or sub-tenant while the principal use of the house remains accommodation for the landlord and the landlord’s family. On this reading, the exception could only apply to small scale and limited letting, because the principal use of the property would have to be as a residence for the landlord and the landlord could have only one or perhaps two properties which could be so described.” Analysis
The first issue I must determine is whether the premises are a boarding house. The respondent rented four bedrooms to single occupants only. I find the number of people the respondent intended to occupy these bedrooms to be four, not six or more. For this reason, the premises do not meet the definition of being a boarding house. 1
The second issue I must determine is whether the relevant premises to be assessed are the entire house or the applicant’s bedroom. The applicant had exclusive use of their bedroom, but shared the bathroom, kitchen, dining area and lounge with other occupants. The applicant’s bedroom was not “self- contained,” “fully functioning” or “independent” like the granny flat in Harding v Shellevis & Ors [2021] NZHC 1265. This is not a case where there were two separate and distinct household units within one premises. Therefore, I find the relevant premises to be the entire house, not just the applicant’s bedroom. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 66B.
Having identified the relevant premises, the third issue I must determine is whether the respondent used the premises principally as a place of residence during the tenancy. For the following reasons, I find it they did: a. The respondent lived in the premises during the course of the tenancy. b. The respondent shared the kitchen, dining room and lounge with the other occupants of the premises, including the applicant. c. The respondent occupied one bedroom and rented out the other four. The number of bedrooms and additional occupants is significantly less than in Musson. This indicates the purpose of the arrangement was not commercial. d. The respondent paid $1,175.00 in rent to the owner of the premises. The respondent received a total of $1,050.00 from the occupants of the other four bedrooms. This is less than the rent payable for the entire premises, which indicates the main purpose of the premises was to provide a place of residence for the respondent, not generate an income.
For these reasons, I find section 5(1)(n) RTA applies and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim.
The applicant claims that the power dynamic between themselves and the head tenant was such that they believed the relationship to be one of landlord and tenant. The applicant claims flatmates are on an equal footing, whereas the respondent was the person who determined the rules of the house, including the fact that the applicant could not make noise after 10:00pm and had to seek permission to have visitors. This evidence does not detract from the fact that the respondent used the premises principally as a place of residence during the tenancy, which means the RTA does not apply. Filing fee
The applicant has not been wholly or substantially successful in their claim and therefore, I do not order the respondent to reimburse the filing fee.

Order

The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 18 November 2025.
The premises at 2 George Laurenson Lane, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 consists of five bedrooms. The respondent signed a tenancy agreement with the owner for the entire premises. The respondent lived in the premises and rented out four bedrooms to help pay the rent due under the tenancy agreement. The applicant rented one of the bedrooms from 25 February 2025 – 27 July 2025.
The parties signed a “flat/house sharing agreement”, which records the respondent as “head tenant” and applicant as “flatmate.” The applicant paid $280.00 per week in rent and a bond of $840.00. The applicant had exclusive use of their bedroom but shared the bathroom, kitchen, dining room and lounge with other people living in the premises. The utilities were shared equally between all occupants.
When the applicant left the premises, the respondent deducted $50.00 form the bond. The applicant seeks to challenge this deduction.
The first hurdle the applicant must overcome is to establish that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim. The law
Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.
Section 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. Residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence. Tenancy in relation to any residential premises means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent. The applicant lived in a residential house and paid the respondent $280.00 per week. This sounds like a residential tenancy.
Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances in which a tenancy is excluded from the Act.
Section 5(1)(n) states the RTA does 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.”
Section 10 RTA provides that, where a party to proceedings contends the RTA does not apply, they must establish the facts supporting their contention. In other words, the respondent has the burden of proving the RTA does not apply to the living arrangement involving the applicant.
When determining whether the RTA applies, the Tribunal considers the substance of the agreement between the parties rather than the labels they have applied. The fact that the parties signed a “flat/house – sharing agreement” and not a tenant agreement is not determinative. The Tribunal looks behind labels to establish the true nature of the living situation.
In Musson v Dobrisek & Ors DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006-032-36, the District Court considered tenancy premises where the owner lived in one bedroom and rented the other eight bedrooms out to people. Everyone shared the use of the kitchen, lounge and bathroom, known as the “common areas.” The District Court held that the relevant question in cases where the landlord lives at the property they also rent out, is whether the principal use of the premises is as a place of residence by the landlord. “[39]... So the question to be asked is – Is the principal use of these premises as a place of residence by the landlord? [40] Put in this way, the clear answer, on the cases of both sides, is “no.” Mr Musson occupied one bedroom out of nine, and shared the common area equally with the other occupants. Far from Mr Musson’s use of the property being “principal”, it was commensurate with that of the other occupants. [41] I consider that this interpretation reflects what I perceive to be the policy objectives of the Act. Relevantly, it is intended to govern landlord/tenant relationships which are primarily commercial. Section 5(n) appears to me intended to cover the situation of the owner or tenant of a house letting out a bedroom or bedsitting room to a tenant or sub-tenant while the principal use of the house remains accommodation for the landlord and the landlord’s family. On this reading, the exception could only apply to small scale and limited letting, because the principal use of the property would have to be as a residence for the landlord and the landlord could have only one or perhaps two properties which could be so described.” Analysis
The first issue I must determine is whether the premises are a boarding house. The respondent rented four bedrooms to single occupants only. I find the number of people the respondent intended to occupy these bedrooms to be four, not six or more. For this reason, the premises do not meet the definition of being a boarding house. 1
The second issue I must determine is whether the relevant premises to be assessed are the entire house or the applicant’s bedroom. The applicant had exclusive use of their bedroom, but shared the bathroom, kitchen, dining area and lounge with other occupants. The applicant’s bedroom was not “self- contained,” “fully functioning” or “independent” like the granny flat in Harding v Shellevis & Ors [2021] NZHC 1265. This is not a case where there were two separate and distinct household units within one premises. Therefore, I find the relevant premises to be the entire house, not just the applicant’s bedroom. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 66B.
Having identified the relevant premises, the third issue I must determine is whether the respondent used the premises principally as a place of residence during the tenancy. For the following reasons, I find it they did: a. The respondent lived in the premises during the course of the tenancy. b. The respondent shared the kitchen, dining room and lounge with the other occupants of the premises, including the applicant. c. The respondent occupied one bedroom and rented out the other four. The number of bedrooms and additional occupants is significantly less than in Musson. This indicates the purpose of the arrangement was not commercial. d. The respondent paid $1,175.00 in rent to the owner of the premises. The respondent received a total of $1,050.00 from the occupants of the other four bedrooms. This is less than the rent payable for the entire premises, which indicates the main purpose of the premises was to provide a place of residence for the respondent, not generate an income.
For these reasons, I find section 5(1)(n) RTA applies and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim.
The applicant claims that the power dynamic between themselves and the head tenant was such that they believed the relationship to be one of landlord and tenant. The applicant claims flatmates are on an equal footing, whereas the respondent was the person who determined the rules of the house, including the fact that the applicant could not make noise after 10:00pm and had to seek permission to have visitors. This evidence does not detract from the fact that the respondent used the premises principally as a place of residence during the tenancy, which means the RTA does not apply. Filing fee
The applicant has not been wholly or substantially successful in their claim and therefore, I do not order the respondent to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5316113 — Boarding House at 2 George Laurenson Lane, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5316113 — Boarding House at 2 George Laurenson Lane, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

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