What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5330299 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to

How much money was awarded in case 5330299?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5330299?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5330299?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12791977-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5330299 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to

How much money was awarded in case 5330299?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5330299?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5330299?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12791977-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

531 Peninsula Road, Kelvin Heights, Queenstown 9300 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5330299 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application is dismissed as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 28 November 2025.
The claim relates to premises at 531 Peninsula Road, Queenstown (“the premises”).
The living arrangement between the parties commenced on 20 January 2025 and ended on 6 July 2025.
The occupants, [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] (“the occupants”) filed their application with Tenancy Services on 23 August 2025.
The occupants seek orders for the release of their bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. The application for exemplary damages, for the failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre, was withdrawn by the tenants during the course of the hearing.
The occupants claim that the living arrangement was a boarding house arrangement. The landlord says that it was a flatting arrangement.
Some of the facts are agreed upon by the parties, namely;
The premises were let by [The landlord/s] directly from the owner.
There was never any form of written agreement between [The landlord/s] and the occupants.
The occupants had the exclusive use of one bedroom (although the actual bedroom used by the tenants changed during the course of the arrangement).
The occupants had shared use of the kitchen, lounge, bathroom, hallway, laundry and the like.
For reasons that are not entirely relevant to this enquiry, the landlord gave the occupants 28 days’ notice to terminate the arrangement. The occupants countered that by giving [The landlord/s] one weeks’ notice.
No more than 6 people ever resided at the premises. Included in that number was [The landlord/s], his partner and his son.
There is a preliminary issue whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. 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 all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
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. The terms ’residential premises’, ‘tenancy’, and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined as: residential premises means 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 tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) 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 tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means 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 agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement
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 66 RTA defines a “Boarding House” as meaning; (a) Containing one or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants of the boarding house; and (b) occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time.
The term “tenant” is defined by s.2 RTA as being “the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement”.
The undisputed evidence was that there can only ever have been a maximum of four tenants, as [The landlord/s] ,his partner and his son were not tenants, as that term is defined under the RTA. If anything, they were the grantor of the tenancy and his family.
For that reason, the application by the occupants must be dismissed. The arrangement cannot as a matter of law have been a boarding house arrangement.
If I am wrong in that assessment, I consider that the arrangement would also have been excluded under s.5(1)(n) RTA.
Section 3 RTA provides that the RTA will apply to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.
Section 5 RTA sets out the exclusions.
Section 5 (1)(n) RTA provides that the RTA will not apply where “the premises, not being a boarding house, continued 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 landlords or owners family”.
I have already found that this was not a boarding house. The term “principally” relates to the premises. Were the premises used principally for the owner and his family? In this case, the premises were used by [The landlord/s], his partner and his child. Only two bedrooms were for the exclusive use of other parties.
For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the claim and the application is dismissed.
The parties are entitled to pursue their application in another jurisdiction, possibly the Disputes Tribunal. That is a matter for the parties.

Order

The application is dismissed as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 28 November 2025.
The claim relates to premises at 531 Peninsula Road, Queenstown (“the premises”).
The living arrangement between the parties commenced on 20 January 2025 and ended on 6 July 2025.
The occupants, [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] (“the occupants”) filed their application with Tenancy Services on 23 August 2025.
The occupants seek orders for the release of their bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. The application for exemplary damages, for the failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre, was withdrawn by the tenants during the course of the hearing.
The occupants claim that the living arrangement was a boarding house arrangement. The landlord says that it was a flatting arrangement.
Some of the facts are agreed upon by the parties, namely;
The premises were let by [The landlord/s] directly from the owner.
There was never any form of written agreement between [The landlord/s] and the occupants.
The occupants had the exclusive use of one bedroom (although the actual bedroom used by the tenants changed during the course of the arrangement).
The occupants had shared use of the kitchen, lounge, bathroom, hallway, laundry and the like.
For reasons that are not entirely relevant to this enquiry, the landlord gave the occupants 28 days’ notice to terminate the arrangement. The occupants countered that by giving [The landlord/s] one weeks’ notice.
No more than 6 people ever resided at the premises. Included in that number was [The landlord/s], his partner and his son.
There is a preliminary issue whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. 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 all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
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. The terms ’residential premises’, ‘tenancy’, and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined as: residential premises means 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 tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) 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 tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means 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 agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement
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 66 RTA defines a “Boarding House” as meaning; (a) Containing one or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants of the boarding house; and (b) occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time.
The term “tenant” is defined by s.2 RTA as being “the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement”.
The undisputed evidence was that there can only ever have been a maximum of four tenants, as [The landlord/s] ,his partner and his son were not tenants, as that term is defined under the RTA. If anything, they were the grantor of the tenancy and his family.
For that reason, the application by the occupants must be dismissed. The arrangement cannot as a matter of law have been a boarding house arrangement.
If I am wrong in that assessment, I consider that the arrangement would also have been excluded under s.5(1)(n) RTA.
Section 3 RTA provides that the RTA will apply to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.
Section 5 RTA sets out the exclusions.
Section 5 (1)(n) RTA provides that the RTA will not apply where “the premises, not being a boarding house, continued 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 landlords or owners family”.
I have already found that this was not a boarding house. The term “principally” relates to the premises. Were the premises used principally for the owner and his family? In this case, the premises were used by [The landlord/s], his partner and his child. Only two bedrooms were for the exclusive use of other parties.
For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the claim and the application is dismissed.
The parties are entitled to pursue their application in another jurisdiction, possibly the Disputes Tribunal. That is a matter for the parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5330299 — Exemplary damages at 531 Peninsula Road, Kelvin Heights, Queenstown 9300

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5330299 — Exemplary damages at 531 Peninsula Road, Kelvin Heights, Queenstown 9300

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