What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317180 about?

The tribunal order states: The applications are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 5317180?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317180?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317180?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12626911-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317180 about?

The tribunal order states: The applications are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 5317180?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317180?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317180?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12626911-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

133 Neville Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5317180 — Cleanliness

Order

The applications are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Mr Smith has applied for recovery of a bond. Mr Magic claims that this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claims. Mr Magic also says that if the Tribunal does have jurisdiction, then he has claims for compensation and outstanding rent.
Both parties attended a hearing by video to consider the preliminary issue: whether the Tribunal can hear the claims.
Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 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 all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Section 10 RTA provides that, where a party to proceedings contends that the Act does not apply, they must establish the facts supporting their contention. In other words, they have the burden of proving the Act does not apply.
Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides that the Act 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
When determining whether the Act is excluded, the Tribunal considers the substance of the agreement between the parties rather than the labels they have applied. Factual Background
Mr Magic owns the property at 133 Neville St. There is a house and a sleep- out.
Mr Magic sleeps in the sleep-out. He rents out the bedrooms. The rooms are advertised on Trade Me as flatmates wanted. Mr Magic describes himself as one of the flatmates in the advertisements.
Mr Smith responded to one of the advertisements and moved in at the end of September 2024. He received information regarding the living arrangements from Mr Magic in a “Flat Mate Arrival Pack”. That information refers to “our household” and communal use of WIFI, consumables (other than food) and utilities. There is also reference to a flatmate WhatsApp group and a cleaning roster. Mr Magic was not on the cleaning roster. He said that was because he did all the gardening and exterior tidying.
Mr Magic has some basic and makeshift cooking facilities set up in the sleep- out. He cooks in the sleep-out, outside on a barbecue and in the kitchen of the house. The sleep-out is not self-contained; it has no bathroom or toilet facilities. Mr Magic uses the bathroom, toilet and laundry in the house. He socialises with the other tenants in the lounge and on the deck of the house. He has a desk/worktable and gaming equipment set up in the lounge.
Mr Smith said that the inside tenants were flatmates, but that Mr Magic was not. Mr Smith maintains that the sleep-out is self-contained and that Mr Magic only uses the house on very limited occasions. There was even a suggestion that Mr Magic toilets in the garden. Mr Magic responded that Mr Smith was out most days, so was not aware of how often Mr Magic was inside the premises. Legal Position
Mr Smith’s primary position was that Mr Magic acted as a landlord, so the Residential Tenancies Act applies.
There is no issue that the house and sleep-out are residential premises (as defined by the RTA) or that a tenancy exists between Mr Magic ad Mr Smith, with the latter having the right to occupy premises (or part of premises) in consideration for rent.
The issue is whether the RTA (and the jurisdiction of this Tribunal) are excluded by s5(1)(n) of the RTA. The key consideration in this case is what are “the premises”? Were there two discrete household units at the property, or were

Mr Magic and Mr Smith were flatmates?

In Harding v Schellevis, Tan and Caroto [2021] NZHC 1265, the High Court considered whether the occupants of a ‘granny flat’ situated within a larger dwelling were boarders or tenants. The upper level of the dwelling had four bedrooms, a kitchen, bathrooms and a living area. The landlord family also used a living room, garage and laundry downstairs. The ground floor also had a separate granny flat comprising two bedrooms, a kitchenette, bathroom, laundry and living room.
The granny flat had a separate entrance, a dedicated parking area, and an area outside for the occupants’ exclusive use. Water and power were included in the rent and the occupants arranged their own internet. The landlord could only enter the granny flat for inspections, repairs and viewings for new tenants. The occupants had no right of entry to the rest of the house.
The High Court said the critical issue was whether the ‘premises’ referred to in s 5(1)(n) were just the granny flat, or the dwelling as a whole including the granny flat. It found that the relevant premises were the granny flat and not the entire dwelling. The self-contained nature of the granny flat was decisive in Harding.
The High Court has also considered a factual situation similar to this case where the tenant rented a single bedroom from the landlord who lived in the house. The landlord and other occupants shared facilities. The Court looked at the extent of shared facilities, to conclude it was a flatting arrangement and excluded from the RTA by s5(1)(n). See Cavanagh v Jackson [2025] NZHC 1491, where the Court stated: [27] Harding v Schellevis stands in contradistinction to the circumstances of the present case. Notwithstanding the controversy between the parties regarding the degree of separation and independence from the wider property that Ms Cavanagh maintains confined her tenancy to the bedroom, the living arrangements were almost the converse of those that weighed strongly on this Court in Harding v Schellevis to conclude the granny flat represented a distinct unit within the property. In contrast, I do not consider Ms Cavanagh’s bedroom could be described as self-contained. [28] Based on the District Court’s accepted findings of fact, I am unable to discern any error in the Judge’s analysis regarding the nature of the rented premises: Each of Mrs Jackson, Ms Cavanagh and the male tenant were able to share the living facilities such as cooking, bathroom (except Mrs Jackson’s ensuite) living room and laundry. Aside from Mrs Jackson’s bedroom Ms Cavanagh and the other tenant had free and unimpeded access to premises occupied by Mrs Jackson. Further, Ms Cavanagh’s bedroom and the bedrooms of the male tenant were not self-contained. The three of them, Mrs Jackson, Ms Cavanagh and the male tenant were in a cooperative arrangement in which they were on the same footing in that they had exclusive occupation of their own room and shared use and occupation of common areas such as a kitchen. (emphasis added) [29] As discussed in the Tribunal’s determination, the arrangement between Ms Cavanagh and Mrs Jackson was for all practical purposes akin to a flatting situation. Mrs Jackson (by some arrangement the details of which are not before this Court) leased the Woolston property from its owner. There was no prohibition on Mrs Jackson renting out spare rooms to earn some income. Mrs Jackson let a room to Ms Cavanagh. In so doing, as is accepted on the appeal, Mrs Jackson became a “landlord”, as that term is defined under the Act. [30] Ms Cavanagh had free and unimpeded access to the common areas of the property. While her tenancy granted her exclusive use of her allocated room, it also provided her with a licence to access and use other parts of the premises, including the kitchen, living room, bathroom, and it would appear generally the whole property save for the other tenant’s room and Mrs Jackson’s bedroom and ensuite which, like Ms Cavanagh’s own room, was her private preserve. [31] I cannot accept Ms Cavanagh’s submission that the term “premises” can be construed as being limited to her own room which provided few facilities for habitation beyond sleeping, storage and privacy. In oral submissions, Ms Cavanagh advised that she had her own television set in her bedroom and a rice cooker and slow cooker that she also used there. However, while she chose to spend most of her time in her bedroom, she accepted she had access to the kitchen, bathroom and laundry areas, and parked her vehicle on the property. Access to those facilities reflect that the tenancy included shared or common areas that enabled the parties to live together in the same residence”.
In this case, all occupants were excluded from the other’s rooms (or the sleep- out) but otherwise had free and unimpeded use of the house. They shared bathroom, kitchen and laundry facilities. They shared communal living spaces.
Applying the rational in both the Harding v Schellevis and Cavanagh v Jackson decisions to the facts of this occupancy, I find that Mr Magic and Mr Smith were flatmates. Mr Magic resided at the premises (being the house and sleep-out) during Mr Smith’s occupancy, so the arrangement is excluded from the RTA. This Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claims.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317180 — Cleanliness at 133 Neville Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317180 — Cleanliness at 133 Neville Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Mr Magic and Mr Smith were flatmates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Mr Magic and Mr Smith were flatmates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions