Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5322667 — Tenancy dispute

Decided 10 Sept 2025 · Published 10 Sept 2025 · Application 5322667

Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

New Zealand

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

G Barnett

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the party’s names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The applicant filed their claim on 08 August 2025. On 18 August 2025, the claim was set down for a hearing to determine whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear it. Relevant facts
An associate of the respondent owned a house bus that was parked on the respondent’s land. The applicant and the associate entered into an agreement whereby the applicant would swap a sailing yacht for the house bus. The applicant’s intention was to remove the house bus from the property.
The associate stated that they required time to remove their belongings from the bus. The applicant stated that they needed time to make the house bus driveable. The respondent agreed that the bus could remain on the property while the applicant carried out this work, and that the applicant could stay in their bus while doing so for $80.00 per week.
The applicant had access to an outside toilet and power. If the tenant wished to bathe, they had access to a nearby community swimming pool. The applicant was later joined by another person and also brought other vehicles onto the land, which were stored in a shed. The applicant did not reside in the shed which was used solely for storage.
The dispute concerns how much the applicant was to pay for using the respondent’s land and facilities, and how long the agreement was too last.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with disputes between landlords and tenants. Before dealing with the substantive claim the issue arises as to whether the Tribunal in fact has jurisdiction, or is the relationship excluded. Law
Premises are defined in section 2(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act) and include: (a) any part of premises and, (b) any land and appurtenances, other than facilities, and (c) any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land.
Residential premises are defined in the Act as any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful.
A tenancy is defined, in relation to any residential premises, the right to occupy the premises, (whether exclusively or not) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy.
A tenancy agreement is defined, in relation to any residential premises, as any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy and any variation of a tenancy agreement.
Section 2(1) defines rent as meaning any money, goods, services, or other valuable consideration in the nature of rent to be paid or supplied under a tenancy agreement by the tenant; but does not include any sum of money payable or paid by way of bond.
The starting point under section 4 of the Act is that the provisions of the Act will apply to all tenancies of residential premises unless excluded under Section 5(1)(a) – (y).
Under Section 5(1)(t) the provisions of the Act are excluded where the premises are bare land (with or without facilities) on which the tenant has the right under the agreement to place or erect a mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter.
Section 8 of the Act provides where the Act is excluded, the parties can acknowledge the exclusion and contract back into some or all of the provisions of the Act.
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. Analysis and conclusion
Section 2(1) defines premises to include land and any mobile home or caravan intended for occupation.
The agreement between the parties was that the applicant was permitted to keep the house bus on the respondent’s land and stay in it while it was being made ready to move. The applicant was to pay rent. The agreement was made orally. A further agreement was entered into whereby the applicant could use a shed belonging to the respondent to store property which included vehicles.
The respondent’s land falls within the definition of premises. The respondent granted the applicant the right to occupy the land in return for rent. On the face of it this created a residential tenancy agreement.
However, section 5(1)(t) of the Act excludes bare land (with or without facilities) where the tenant has the right to place or erect a mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter.
In this case, the applicant owned the house bus and parked it on the respondent’s land under the agreement.
The agreement therefore falls squarely within the exclusion in section 5(1)(t) of the Act.
For the Act to apply, the parties would have needed to expressly contract back into the agreement under section 8. There is no evidence they did so.
Because the agreement is excluded under section 5(1)(t) and there is no contracting back in, the provisions of the Act do not apply. Therefore, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the dispute.
As the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to exercise the discretion in section 95A(4) and order suppression of the names and details of the parties.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

NO ADDRESS

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s2(1), s3, s4, s5(1), s8, s95A(4)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5322667 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 5322667?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5322667?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5322667?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12389626-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

For landlords & property managers

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.

Order a Tenantcheck →

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.

The applicant filed their claim on 08 August 2025. On 18 August 2025, the claim was set down for a hearing to determine whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear it. Relevant facts

An associate of the respondent owned a house bus that was parked on the respondent’s land. The applicant and the associate entered into an agreement whereby the applicant would swap a sailing yacht for the house bus. The applicant’s intention was to remove the house bus from the property.

The associate stated that they required time to remove their belongings from the bus. The applicant stated that they needed time to make the house bus driveable. The respondent agreed that the bus could remain on the property while the applicant carried out this work, and that the applicant could stay in their bus while doing so for $80.00 per week.

The applicant had access to an outside toilet and power. If the tenant wished to bathe, they had access to a nearby community swimming pool. The applicant was later joined by another person and also brought other vehicles onto the land, which were stored in a shed. The applicant did not reside in the shed which was used solely for storage.

The dispute concerns how much the applicant was to pay for using the respondent’s land and facilities, and how long the agreement was too last.

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with disputes between landlords and tenants. Before dealing with the substantive claim the issue arises as to whether the Tribunal in fact has jurisdiction, or is the relationship excluded. Law

Premises are defined in section 2(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act) and include: (a) any part of premises and, (b) any land and appurtenances, other than facilities, and (c) any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land.

Residential premises are defined in the Act as any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful.

A tenancy is defined, in relation to any residential premises, the right to occupy the premises, (whether exclusively or not) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy.

A tenancy agreement is defined, in relation to any residential premises, as any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy and any variation of a tenancy agreement.

Section 2(1) defines rent as meaning any money, goods, services, or other valuable consideration in the nature of rent to be paid or supplied under a tenancy agreement by the tenant; but does not include any sum of money payable or paid by way of bond.

The starting point under section 4 of the Act is that the provisions of the Act will apply to all tenancies of residential premises unless excluded under Section 5(1)(a) – (y).

Under Section 5(1)(t) the provisions of the Act are excluded where the premises are bare land (with or without facilities) on which the tenant has the right under the agreement to place or erect a mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter.

Section 8 of the Act provides where the Act is excluded, the parties can acknowledge the exclusion and contract back into some or all of the provisions of the Act.

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. Analysis and conclusion

Section 2(1) defines premises to include land and any mobile home or caravan intended for occupation.

The agreement between the parties was that the applicant was permitted to keep the house bus on the respondent’s land and stay in it while it was being made ready to move. The applicant was to pay rent. The agreement was made orally. A further agreement was entered into whereby the applicant could use a shed belonging to the respondent to store property which included vehicles.

The respondent’s land falls within the definition of premises. The respondent granted the applicant the right to occupy the land in return for rent. On the face of it this created a residential tenancy agreement.

However, section 5(1)(t) of the Act excludes bare land (with or without facilities) where the tenant has the right to place or erect a mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter.

In this case, the applicant owned the house bus and parked it on the respondent’s land under the agreement.

The agreement therefore falls squarely within the exclusion in section 5(1)(t) of the Act.

For the Act to apply, the parties would have needed to expressly contract back into the agreement under section 8. There is no evidence they did so.

Because the agreement is excluded under section 5(1)(t) and there is no contracting back in, the provisions of the Act do not apply. Therefore, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the dispute.

As the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to exercise the discretion in section 95A(4) and order suppression of the names and details of the parties.