What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5329339 about?

The tribunal order states: , as well as any identifying details

How much money was awarded in case 5329339?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5329339?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5329339?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12901848-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5329339 about?

The tribunal order states: , as well as any identifying details

How much money was awarded in case 5329339?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5329339?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5329339?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12901848-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5329339 — Healthy homes

Order

, as well as any identifying details of the Arrangement including the address of the property.

The application is struck out as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this dispute.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
[The respondent’s representative], representative for the respondents to the claim, attended the hearing along with [Respondent 1] and [Respondent 2].
[The applicant] (applicant) was not in the Microsoft Teams waiting room at the start of the hearing (9.30am). [The respondent’s representative] attempted to call her about eight minutes after the hearing started as he had expected her to attend, but she did not answer. At around 10.20am I received an email from registry staff that [The applicant] was waiting to be connected via Teams. She was not in the waiting room for the Teams link for this hearing and again [The respondent’s representative] called her. She successfully joined the hearing by video link around 45 minutes after the hearing commenced.
[The applicant] has filed an application with the Tenancy Tribunal: • that the premises does not comply with Healthy Homes standards; • that the respondents/landlords are in breach of their obligations under section 45, Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA); • seeking for the Tribunal make work orders/orders for compliance; • that the notice to terminate given to the tenant is retaliatory and of no effect; • that the termination notice is defective and of no effect.
However there is a preliminary issue as to whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s claims which needs to be resolved before the substantive matters can be heard. Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental and must be decided before the Tribunal can determine any matters claimed.

Does the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 apply?

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute between a landlord and a tenant that relates to a residential tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies 1 . The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine disputes between parties other than those in a landlord and tenant relationship.
The key issue here is whether the arrangement between the parties is a residential tenancy under the RTA.
In early January 2023 [The applicant] and her children moved into the property, which she refers in her application as the “family homestead”. At the time the applicant moved in her aunt, [Owner 1], was living in the property. Her uncle [Owner 2] ([Owner 1]’s brother), had lived in the property until he passed away. [Owner 1] and [Owner 2] owned the property along with the respondents named in this application.
On 26 July 2025 two notices were served on [The applicant] to vacate the premises. One of the notices was headed ‘Notice of Eviction to Vacate’ and the other notice was a Tenancy Services standard form termination notice for a periodic tenancy (“termination notice”).
This order does not consider the effect of the ‘Notice of Eviction to Vacate’ as it is not a notice issued under the RTA.
The termination notice gave [The applicant] 90 days’ notice to vacate and stated the last day of the tenancy as 6 September 2025. [The applicant] has not vacated the property and after receiving the termination notice filed her application on 1 September 2025.
At the hearing [The applicant] said she did not consider that her arrangement to live at the property was a residential tenancy before she received the termination notice. She stated that: 1 See section 77, RTA a. the arrangement for her to live at the property was informal; b. she had not paid rent, and payment of rent had never been discussed with her; c. she had a brief discussion with [Owner 1] when the arrangement was made and was told she had to contribute to the power and make contributions into the bank account that had been set up for the property. [The applicant] explained the bank account had been opened some time around 2011- 2012 and that various whanau members contributed to the account. The account was for rates and renovation costs. d. she had contributed to the account, albeit that the contributions were not always made on a regular basis, from at least 2014 2 . In terms of making contributions to the account [The applicant] said the only thing that had changed was that she had moved into the property. That is, she had contributed to the account before she had moved in and would have continued to make contributions to the account even if she had not been living there. e. [Owner 1] did not talk to her about how long she could stay, but [Respondent 2] told her “you’re not staying here for long”. f.As the termination notice was an RTA notice and used wording that was appropriate for residential tenancies under the RTA she considered that meant the arrangement was a tenancy and that the owners had invoked the provisions of the RTA.
The property owners’ position is that it is not a residential tenancy under the RTA. They say: a. [Owner 1], [Respondent 1] and [Respondent 2] agreed that [The applicant] could move in with her children as she needed somewhere to live. The arrangement was short term until she could find somewhere suitable to live in. b. all 3 of them talked to [The applicant] about the arrangement, and in doing so there was no discussion about [The applicant] paying rent. [The applicant] was asked to contribute the house bank account, but her living at the property was not conditional on her making contributions to the account. c. they never intended the arrangement to be a residential tenancy or that [The applicant] was to be considered a tenant. It was a family arrangement and the family owners agreed she could stay there for a short period. 2 The applicant believed she had contributed from earlier than 2014 but had not been able to access bank account records prior to 2014 to establish that d. [The applicant] was asked to vacate the property but did not do so. They were not sure how to give her notice to leave and relied on advice from [Community organisation] in using the RTA termination notice. In doing so they did not intend that the arrangement was to become a tenancy under the RTA. e. It could not be considered a tenancy under the RTA as [Owner 1] was using the property as her place of residence, and therefore the arrangement would be excluded under s 5(1)(n), RTA.
Section 2 of the RTA sets out relevant definitions in relation to any residential premises: a. a ‘landlord’ is the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement and includes agents of the landlord; b. a ‘tenant’ is the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement; c. ‘tenancy’ means the right to occupy the premises in consideration for rent; d. ‘rent’ means 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; e. ‘tenancy agreement’ means any express or implied agreement under which a person grants to another person a tenancy of the premises for rent. f.‘residential premises’ means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence.
Essential to any residential tenancy under the RTA is that there is a tenancy agreement under which the landlord grants the tenant a tenancy in consideration for rent.
Having considering all of the submissions and evidence presented by the parties I am satisfied that it was not intended by either the owners of the property or [The applicant] at the time the arrangement was entered into that this was a tenancy to which the provisions of the RTA applied. I am satisfied all parties saw this as an arrangement made between family for [The applicant] to live in the property for a period of time. [The applicant] was never asked to pay rent, and has not paid any money or supplied any other consideration to the property owners that can be considered to be rent.
As the parties to this arrangement are family, the arrangement is excluded as a residential tenancy under section 5 (1)(n) and the RTA does not apply unless there is clear evidence that all parties had agreed the RTA applied to the arrangement 3 . That is not the case here. 3 See section 8, RTA
The incorrect, and I accept mistaken, use of a Tenancy Services standard form to give [The applicant] notice to end the arrangement and vacate the property is not sufficient to show there was an intention for RTA to apply. There was no discussion with [The applicant] at any stage about whether this arrangement was to be a tenancy, and that the obligations and responsibilities of landlords and tenants under the RTA would apply. A party can not unilaterally change the terms of a contract or agreement.
Therefore as I find the arrangement between the parties is not that of a tenancy agreement under the RTA I conclude that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider and determine [The applicant]’s claim.
The application is accordingly struck out.
Suppression: The Tribunal of its own initiative orders suppression of the parties’ names and the identifying details of the claim including all persons referred to in the decision and the address of the property. In doing so I have had regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest and do not consider there is any public interest in having the names of the parties and the details of the arrangement published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5329339 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5329339 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 apply?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Does the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 apply?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions