What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331440 about?

The tribunal order states: By way of declaration, the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear

How much money was awarded in case 5331440?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331440?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331440?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12500480-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331440 about?

The tribunal order states: By way of declaration, the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear

How much money was awarded in case 5331440?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331440?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331440?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12500480-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

23 Barnetts Road, Waipara, RD 3, Waipara 7483 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5331440 — Tenancy dispute

Order

By way of declaration, the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claims, as there was no tenancy established and the applicant has not established any standing in relation to the respondent.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Mrs Hingston, for Caleb Properties Limited, and Mr Bowler, both attended the video conference hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, assault, notice to quit and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The Tribunal first heard the matter on 10 September 2025 at which time it became clear that the Tribunal first had to determine whether it has jurisdiction to deal with the claims. As such, in a Tribunal order dated 11 September 2025, the hearing was adjourned and the parties were directed to provide any documents they believed were relevant, in particular the documents which clarify ownership of the landlord and evidence of any tenancy arrangement. A further hearing was scheduled to hear only the issue of whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the claims.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims?

Law

Section 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA) contains the following relevant definitions: agent, in relation to any person who is a landlord or a tenant, means an agent of that person in that person’s capacity as landlord or tenant; and includes and employee of that person in that person’s capacity as landlord or tenant. 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. landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement; and, where appropriate, includes a prospective landlord and a former landlord and a lawful successor in title of a landlord to the premises and the personal representative of a deceased landlord and an agent of a landlord. tenant, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement; and, where appropriate includes a prospective tenant and a former tenant and a lawful successor in title of a tenant to the premises and the personal representative of a deceased tenant and an agent of a tenant.
Section 4 of the RTA provides that the Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes, except as specifically provided.
Section 5 of the RTA sets out the situations in which the application of the RTA is excluded. Evidence
The landlord confirmed that the property which they say is the tenancy property is 23 Barnetts Road, Waipara. The landlord lives adjacent to this property apparently.
Mrs Hingston said the owner of 23 Barnetts Road, Waipara is Mr Osborne and she provided a rates notice for 23 Barnetts Road, Waipara confirming the rates notice for this property was addressed to Mr Osborne.
Mrs Hingston explained that, whilst Mr Osborne owns the land at 23 Barnetts Road, Waipara, there are 4 tiny homes on this land that are owned by different people. The tiny home in which she said Mr Bowler lives is, she explained, owned by another couple, whom she was reluctant to name. She continued that of the remaining 3 tiny homes on the land at 23 Barnetts Road, Waipara, Mr Osborne owns 1 of them and she and her husband own the other 2 tiny homes.
Mrs Hingston said that the tiny homes are designed to be relocatable and are self-contained but are not situated on a camping ground, rather are on private land. Thus, the tiny home in question does not fall under section 5(1)(ta) of the RTA as it does not meet the definition of a ‘relocatable home’ under section 5(3) RTA.
However, the evidence about this situation does not appear to fall under other exceptions to the RTA outlined in section 5 of the RTA either.
Mrs Hingston confirmed that there is no lease between Mr Osborne and the couple she did not name who apparently own the tiny home that she said Mr Bowler lives in. She clarified that she is bringing the application on behalf of Mr Osborne, however, not the couple who own the tiny home that Mr Bowler apparently lives in.
Mr Bowler said the tiny home he lives in is owned by him and that the land the tiny home is on is 1 Barnetts Road, Waipara, which he said is family land, where there is an arrangement between he and the family that he lives in his tiny home on that land. Mr Bowler denied the tiny home is owned by anybody else and denied the tiny home is situated on the land at 23 Barnetts Road. Mr Bowler further denied there is any tenancy at all.
Mrs Hingston said she owns the land at 1 Barnetts Road, Waipara, not Mr Bowler. She provided a copy of an Agreement for Sale and Purchase for 1 Barnetts Road, Waipara listing she and her husband as purchasers. A copy of an instrument she shared during the hearing said the agreement was dated 11 October 2024. Mr Bowler did not have further comment about this, only reiterated that he has the title to and owns the land at 1 Barnetts Road, Waipara.
Mrs Hingston said the tiny home lived in by Mr Bowler is owned by a couple, who were unnamed, but there was nothing from the owners of the tiny home confirming either that they owned the tiny home Mr Bowler lived in, or that they provided any authority for Caleb Properties Limited or Mrs Hingston to manage the tiny home Mr Bowler lives in on their behalf, or that these tiny home owners authorised Mr Osborne to bring any application on their behalf. Nor was there any additional supporting evidence from the owners of this tiny home or anyone else about whether there is a tenancy with Mr Bowler, and if so, who the correct landlord might be. Mrs Hingston confirmed there is no written tenancy agreement.
Whilst Mrs Hingston said she is bringing the application on behalf of Mr Osborne, who owns the land at 23 Bartletts Road, Waipara, there was no document provided confirming that Caleb Properties Limited or Mrs Hingston have the authority to manage that land on behalf of Mr Osborne. Further, there was no additional supporting evidence provided to confirm the tiny home lived in by Mr Bowler was on land that Mr Osborne owns. Mr Bowler disputed this. Discussion
Even if Caleb Properties Limited had shown they had authority to manage any property on behalf of Mr Osborne, which they have not, they have not provided any evidence that there is any ‘tenancy’ between Mr Bowler and Mr Osborne, as they said the tiny home Mr Bowler lives in is owned by another unnamed couple, not Mr Osborne. Further, the owners of this tiny home do not have a lease with Mr Osborne, according to Mrs Hingston. There is also no evidence provided of any tenancy between the owners of the tiny home in question and Mr Bowler. Thus, there was no evidence provided of any party granting Mr Bowler a tenancy of the premises.
Caleb Properties Limited said they do not act on behalf of the unnamed owners of the tiny home in which they say Mr Bowler lives either.
In fact, there was no evidence provided, by way of a tenancy agreement or otherwise, of any tenancy, by way of rent paid by Mr Bowler to another party, for example, nor was there supporting evidence provided of the appropriate parties to any tenancy alleged.
If there is no tenancy found by the Tribunal, then section 4 of the RTA, which provides for the Act to apply to every ‘tenancy’ for residential purposes, and thus provides jurisdiction for the Tribunal to deal with claims, does not then apply.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that there was a tenancy, nor that there was a tenancy between Mr Bowler and Mr Osborne, the alleged landlord, which would create a landlord/tenant contract, nor that Caleb Properties Limited had authority to act on behalf of Mr Osborne or even the owners of the tiny home in which they say Mr Bowler lives, nor of any tenancy between the tiny home owners and Mr Bowler, nor of whom the correct parties in any tenancy would be in this situation, even if a tenancy was found to exist.
As there is insufficient evidence provided as to whether there was a tenancy, or who any correct landlord would be in any such tenancy, or that Caleb Properties Limited would be the lawful agent of any such correct landlord, I find the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the claims, as no tenancy has been established by the applicant, and the applicant has not established standing in relation to the respondent.
As the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the claims, I dismiss the claims. Suppression
The applicant requested name suppression. The respondent did not request name suppression.
As the applicant has not been successful with the jurisdiction claim, nor was there any evidence as to whether the applicant’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their name, I do not grant name suppression to the applicant. See sections 95A(1) and 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Reasons

Mrs Hingston, for Caleb Properties Limited, and Mr Bowler, both attended the video conference hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, assault, notice to quit and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The Tribunal first heard the matter on 10 September 2025 at which time it became clear that the Tribunal first had to determine whether it has jurisdiction to deal with the claims. As such, in a Tribunal order dated 11 September 2025, the hearing was adjourned and the parties were directed to provide any documents they believed were relevant, in particular the documents which clarify ownership of the landlord and evidence of any tenancy arrangement. A further hearing was scheduled to hear only the issue of whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the claims.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims?

Law

Section 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA) contains the following relevant definitions: agent, in relation to any person who is a landlord or a tenant, means an agent of that person in that person’s capacity as landlord or tenant; and includes and employee of that person in that person’s capacity as landlord or tenant. 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. landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement; and, where appropriate, includes a prospective landlord and a former landlord and a lawful successor in title of a landlord to the premises and the personal representative of a deceased landlord and an agent of a landlord. tenant, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement; and, where appropriate includes a prospective tenant and a former tenant and a lawful successor in title of a tenant to the premises and the personal representative of a deceased tenant and an agent of a tenant.

Section 4 of the RTA provides that the Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes, except as specifically provided.

Section 5 of the RTA sets out the situations in which the application of the RTA is excluded. Evidence

The landlord confirmed that the property which they say is the tenancy property is 23 Barnetts Road, Waipara. The landlord lives adjacent to this property apparently.

Mrs Hingston said the owner of 23 Barnetts Road, Waipara is Mr Osborne and she provided a rates notice for 23 Barnetts Road, Waipara confirming the rates notice for this property was addressed to Mr Osborne.

Mrs Hingston explained that, whilst Mr Osborne owns the land at 23 Barnetts Road, Waipara, there are 4 tiny homes on this land that are owned by different people. The tiny home in which she said Mr Bowler lives is, she explained, owned by another couple, whom she was reluctant to name. She continued that of the remaining 3 tiny homes on the land at 23 Barnetts Road, Waipara, Mr Osborne owns 1 of them and she and her husband own the other 2 tiny homes.

Mrs Hingston said that the tiny homes are designed to be relocatable and are self-contained but are not situated on a camping ground, rather are on private land. Thus, the tiny home in question does not fall under section 5(1)(ta) of the RTA as it does not meet the definition of a ‘relocatable home’ under section 5(3) RTA.

However, the evidence about this situation does not appear to fall under other exceptions to the RTA outlined in section 5 of the RTA either.

Mrs Hingston confirmed that there is no lease between Mr Osborne and the couple she did not name who apparently own the tiny home that she said Mr Bowler lives in. She clarified that she is bringing the application on behalf of Mr Osborne, however, not the couple who own the tiny home that Mr Bowler apparently lives in.

Mr Bowler said the tiny home he lives in is owned by him and that the land the tiny home is on is 1 Barnetts Road, Waipara, which he said is family land, where there is an arrangement between he and the family that he lives in his tiny home on that land. Mr Bowler denied the tiny home is owned by anybody else and denied the tiny home is situated on the land at 23 Barnetts Road. Mr Bowler further denied there is any tenancy at all.

Mrs Hingston said she owns the land at 1 Barnetts Road, Waipara, not Mr Bowler. She provided a copy of an Agreement for Sale and Purchase for 1 Barnetts Road, Waipara listing she and her husband as purchasers. A copy of an instrument she shared during the hearing said the agreement was dated 11 October 2024. Mr Bowler did not have further comment about this, only reiterated that he has the title to and owns the land at 1 Barnetts Road, Waipara.

Mrs Hingston said the tiny home lived in by Mr Bowler is owned by a couple, who were unnamed, but there was nothing from the owners of the tiny home confirming either that they owned the tiny home Mr Bowler lived in, or that they provided any authority for Caleb Properties Limited or Mrs Hingston to manage the tiny home Mr Bowler lives in on their behalf, or that these tiny home owners authorised Mr Osborne to bring any application on their behalf. Nor was there any additional supporting evidence from the owners of this tiny home or anyone else about whether there is a tenancy with Mr Bowler, and if so, who the correct landlord might be. Mrs Hingston confirmed there is no written tenancy agreement.

Whilst Mrs Hingston said she is bringing the application on behalf of Mr Osborne, who owns the land at 23 Bartletts Road, Waipara, there was no document provided confirming that Caleb Properties Limited or Mrs Hingston have the authority to manage that land on behalf of Mr Osborne. Further, there was no additional supporting evidence provided to confirm the tiny home lived in by Mr Bowler was on land that Mr Osborne owns. Mr Bowler disputed this. Discussion

Even if Caleb Properties Limited had shown they had authority to manage any property on behalf of Mr Osborne, which they have not, they have not provided any evidence that there is any ‘tenancy’ between Mr Bowler and Mr Osborne, as they said the tiny home Mr Bowler lives in is owned by another unnamed couple, not Mr Osborne. Further, the owners of this tiny home do not have a lease with Mr Osborne, according to Mrs Hingston. There is also no evidence provided of any tenancy between the owners of the tiny home in question and Mr Bowler. Thus, there was no evidence provided of any party granting Mr Bowler a tenancy of the premises.

Caleb Properties Limited said they do not act on behalf of the unnamed owners of the tiny home in which they say Mr Bowler lives either.

In fact, there was no evidence provided, by way of a tenancy agreement or otherwise, of any tenancy, by way of rent paid by Mr Bowler to another party, for example, nor was there supporting evidence provided of the appropriate parties to any tenancy alleged.

If there is no tenancy found by the Tribunal, then section 4 of the RTA, which provides for the Act to apply to every ‘tenancy’ for residential purposes, and thus provides jurisdiction for the Tribunal to deal with claims, does not then apply.

The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that there was a tenancy, nor that there was a tenancy between Mr Bowler and Mr Osborne, the alleged landlord, which would create a landlord/tenant contract, nor that Caleb Properties Limited had authority to act on behalf of Mr Osborne or even the owners of the tiny home in which they say Mr Bowler lives, nor of any tenancy between the tiny home owners and Mr Bowler, nor of whom the correct parties in any tenancy would be in this situation, even if a tenancy was found to exist.

As there is insufficient evidence provided as to whether there was a tenancy, or who any correct landlord would be in any such tenancy, or that Caleb Properties Limited would be the lawful agent of any such correct landlord, I find the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the claims, as no tenancy has been established by the applicant, and the applicant has not established standing in relation to the respondent.

As the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the claims, I dismiss the claims. Suppression

The applicant requested name suppression. The respondent did not request name suppression.

As the applicant has not been successful with the jurisdiction claim, nor was there any evidence as to whether the applicant’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their name, I do not grant name suppression to the applicant. See sections 95A(1) and 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331440 — Tenancy dispute at 23 Barnetts Road, Waipara, RD 3, Waipara 7483

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331440 — Tenancy dispute at 23 Barnetts Road, Waipara, RD 3, Waipara 7483

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions