What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328499 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and the Landlord name and

How much money was awarded in case 5328499?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328499?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328499?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12719593-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328499 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and the Landlord name and

How much money was awarded in case 5328499?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328499?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328499?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12719593-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5328499 — Harassment

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and the Landlord name and identifying details.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 “(RTA”) is excluded from applying under s5(1)(n) RTA as the principal use of the premises is as a place of residence for the landlord. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the tenants’ application.
The application is struck out due to lack of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The tenants have made this application and seek refund of their bond of $250 together with various other claims including repayment of alleged unlawful rent increase amounts; repayment of other unjustified charges; and compensation for harassment.
The landlord says the living arrangement was not a tenancy but a boarding/flatmate arrangement. The landlord advised that she, her husband and two children live at the premises and it is their home. At the hearing it was also disclosed that the landlord has filed a claim against the tenants in the Disputes Tribunal.
The issue I must decide is whether the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies. If it does not apply then the Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction, or authority, to decide the dispute between the parties.
The RTA applies to all tenancies for residential purposes. 1 A “tenancy” is defined as a right to occupy premises in exchange for rent. 2 However, some tenancies are excluded from the RTA. Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides that the Act will 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 owners’ family.”
This type of arrangement is often called “flatting” or “boarding” when a flatmate or boarder lives in the same premises as the head tenant or owner of the house, who continues to use it mainly as their family home.
The tenants’ evidence is summarised as follows: a. They paid the landlord rent and were given the exclusive right to occupy a furnished bedroom on the first floor and to use other shared facilities in the house; b. There were two other bedrooms rented out on the first floor (under the same arrangement) to one other couple and a single man. However, the single man moved out a week after the tenants moved in; c. The tenants, including the other tenant couple shared a bathroom and toilet on the first floor; d. All tenants and the landlord’s family shared a kitchen, laundry and dining area on the ground floor. The tenants say that the kitchen and laundry facilities were in fact in a garage area. However, they confirmed that the landlord used the kitchen; e. The tenants did not know if there was another kitchen in the house that might only be used by the landlords; f. They believed that a lounge area on the ground floor was only for the landlord’s use; g. They confirmed that the landlords came up to the first floor to pray in an area set aside for that purpose and they also kept some of their belongings in a cupboard on the first floor which they accessed; 1 Section 4 RTA 2 Section 2 RTA h. The first floor was not separated from the rest of the house or partitioned off in any way. Everyone also accessed the premises through the same entrance; i. They believed that the landlords extended family including a brother and parents were also living at the property.
Both the tenants and the landlord signed an agreement prepared by the landlord called a “Flat/house-sharing agreement” (the agreement). The tenants say that while the agreement is dated 23 March 2025 (the day they moved in) they did not sign it until a month after they moved in and it was backdated.
The landlord’s evidence is summarised as follows: a. She lives at the premises with her husband and two children. She confirmed that her family occupies two bedrooms downstairs and this is their family home; b. There are three bedrooms on the first floor, but she usually only lets out 2 of the bedrooms to boarders/flatmates. Therefore the maximum number of boarders is usually 4; c. The tenants and the landlord share facilities in the house except a bathroom and toilet; d. Extended family including her brother and parents come to visit but have not lived there as the tenants believed; e. The tenants would often sit in the lounge with her parents and play with her children.
The landlord referred to the terms of the agreement which states at clause 13: “The Boarder may use other parts of the house in common with members of the household, namely: kitchen, backyard, dining room and lounge area and to be left in tidy condition.”
The landlord also referred to clause 22 of the agreement which she says refers to the second kitchen as “the owner kitchen” and states that it may also be used by boarders.
The agreement that was signed set out the nature of the arrangement recording the right to exclusively use the bedrooms but share the other facilities. The agreement also records that all the people living at the property must pay an equal share of the cost of electricity, gas, water, and internet each week or as the bills are received.
The landlord is not running the premises as a boarding house. A boarding house is defined as residential premises containing 1 or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants which is occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time. 3
After carefully considering all the available evidence, I have reached the view that the arrangement and agreement in this case was a flatting or boarding arrangement contemplated by s5(1)(n) RTA. The landlord’s bedrooms and bath/toilet areas were downstairs, the tenants bedrooms and bath/toilet areas were downstairs. However, they otherwise shared the kitchen, laundry, dining, lounge, and backyard areas and shared equally the utility costs.
The District Court in Musson v Dobrisek DC Lower Hutt, CIV- 2006-032-36, 5 May 2006, held that the correct question for the Tribunal to answer when considering s 5(1)(n) RTA is...“Is the principal use of these premises as a place of residence by the landlord” [or family]
I consider this is a case where the exclusion in s5(1)(n) applies. This is the owner’s home, despite the fact that two rooms are regularly rented out to a maximum of 4 people.
The application must be struck out.
Given this application is struck out for lack of jurisdiction, and any determination by the more appropriate Disputes Tribunal would not name the parties, it is appropriate to suppress the names and identifying details of both parties under s 95A RTA.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and the Landlord name and identifying details.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 “(RTA”) is excluded from applying under s5(1)(n) RTA as the principal use of the premises is as a place of residence for the landlord. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the tenants’ application.
The application is struck out due to lack of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The tenants have made this application and seek refund of their bond of $250 together with various other claims including repayment of alleged unlawful rent increase amounts; repayment of other unjustified charges; and compensation for harassment.
The landlord says the living arrangement was not a tenancy but a boarding/flatmate arrangement. The landlord advised that she, her husband and two children live at the premises and it is their home. At the hearing it was also disclosed that the landlord has filed a claim against the tenants in the Disputes Tribunal.
The issue I must decide is whether the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies. If it does not apply then the Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction, or authority, to decide the dispute between the parties.
The RTA applies to all tenancies for residential purposes. 1 A “tenancy” is defined as a right to occupy premises in exchange for rent. 2 However, some tenancies are excluded from the RTA. Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides that the Act will 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 owners’ family.”
This type of arrangement is often called “flatting” or “boarding” when a flatmate or boarder lives in the same premises as the head tenant or owner of the house, who continues to use it mainly as their family home.
The tenants’ evidence is summarised as follows: a. They paid the landlord rent and were given the exclusive right to occupy a furnished bedroom on the first floor and to use other shared facilities in the house; b. There were two other bedrooms rented out on the first floor (under the same arrangement) to one other couple and a single man. However, the single man moved out a week after the tenants moved in; c. The tenants, including the other tenant couple shared a bathroom and toilet on the first floor; d. All tenants and the landlord’s family shared a kitchen, laundry and dining area on the ground floor. The tenants say that the kitchen and laundry facilities were in fact in a garage area. However, they confirmed that the landlord used the kitchen; e. The tenants did not know if there was another kitchen in the house that might only be used by the landlords; f. They believed that a lounge area on the ground floor was only for the landlord’s use; g. They confirmed that the landlords came up to the first floor to pray in an area set aside for that purpose and they also kept some of their belongings in a cupboard on the first floor which they accessed; 1 Section 4 RTA 2 Section 2 RTA h. The first floor was not separated from the rest of the house or partitioned off in any way. Everyone also accessed the premises through the same entrance; i. They believed that the landlords extended family including a brother and parents were also living at the property.
Both the tenants and the landlord signed an agreement prepared by the landlord called a “Flat/house-sharing agreement” (the agreement). The tenants say that while the agreement is dated 23 March 2025 (the day they moved in) they did not sign it until a month after they moved in and it was backdated.
The landlord’s evidence is summarised as follows: a. She lives at the premises with her husband and two children. She confirmed that her family occupies two bedrooms downstairs and this is their family home; b. There are three bedrooms on the first floor, but she usually only lets out 2 of the bedrooms to boarders/flatmates. Therefore the maximum number of boarders is usually 4; c. The tenants and the landlord share facilities in the house except a bathroom and toilet; d. Extended family including her brother and parents come to visit but have not lived there as the tenants believed; e. The tenants would often sit in the lounge with her parents and play with her children.
The landlord referred to the terms of the agreement which states at clause 13: “The Boarder may use other parts of the house in common with members of the household, namely: kitchen, backyard, dining room and lounge area and to be left in tidy condition.”
The landlord also referred to clause 22 of the agreement which she says refers to the second kitchen as “the owner kitchen” and states that it may also be used by boarders.
The agreement that was signed set out the nature of the arrangement recording the right to exclusively use the bedrooms but share the other facilities. The agreement also records that all the people living at the property must pay an equal share of the cost of electricity, gas, water, and internet each week or as the bills are received.
The landlord is not running the premises as a boarding house. A boarding house is defined as residential premises containing 1 or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants which is occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time. 3
After carefully considering all the available evidence, I have reached the view that the arrangement and agreement in this case was a flatting or boarding arrangement contemplated by s5(1)(n) RTA. The landlord’s bedrooms and bath/toilet areas were downstairs, the tenants bedrooms and bath/toilet areas were downstairs. However, they otherwise shared the kitchen, laundry, dining, lounge, and backyard areas and shared equally the utility costs.
The District Court in Musson v Dobrisek DC Lower Hutt, CIV- 2006-032-36, 5 May 2006, held that the correct question for the Tribunal to answer when considering s 5(1)(n) RTA is...“Is the principal use of these premises as a place of residence by the landlord” [or family]
I consider this is a case where the exclusion in s5(1)(n) applies. This is the owner’s home, despite the fact that two rooms are regularly rented out to a maximum of 4 people.
The application must be struck out.
Given this application is struck out for lack of jurisdiction, and any determination by the more appropriate Disputes Tribunal would not name the parties, it is appropriate to suppress the names and identifying details of both parties under s 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328499 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328499 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions