What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5332403 about?

The tribunal order states: By declaration, the agreement between [The landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] in

How much money was awarded in case 5332403?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5332403?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5332403?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12787638-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5332403 about?

The tribunal order states: By declaration, the agreement between [The landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] in

How much money was awarded in case 5332403?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5332403?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5332403?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12787638-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 23, 172 McLeod Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5332403 — Rent arrears

Order

By declaration, the agreement between [The landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] in relation to the premises at 23/172 McLeod Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland is not a residential tenancy and is therefore not subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this application.
The Applicant will need to pursue the matter before the Disputes Tribunal should she wish to do so.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote video conference.
A preliminary question arises in this case, namely, whether or not the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim, by virtue of s 5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental and must be decided before the Tribunal can go on to make any other findings in a case. Put simply, if there is no jurisdiction, then I cannot proceed to hear the case.
Ms Merritt is the landlord and the owner of the property. The premises consist of a 3-bedroom, two-bathroom townhouse.
Other than exclusive use of her own bedroom the ‘tenant’ shares all other facilities within the house. She uses the same kitchen, bathrooms and indoor and outdoor living areas. She pays her rent to the landlord owner.
On 13 March 2025 the parties signed an ‘Accommodation Sharing Agreement’. for the above address. The terms of the agreement were as follows:
Rent: $200.00 per week which included power, water and internet
Bond $400.00
Tenancy commencement: 22 March 2025
Notice period: 4 weeks – in person or in writing
...
The tenant vacated the premises on or about 23 August 2025.
The landlord seeks rent arrears, power and water expenses.
There is an issue as to whether or not this is a flatting type of arrangement and if the premises continued to be used principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the landlord’s family and thus excluded from the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)).
If the parties are in a flatting situation then I do not have jurisdiction. The issue that I must determine is whether the relationship was a flat sharing agreement of premises shared with the applicant. If so, then the exclusion in s 5(1)(n) will apply and the RTA will not apply.
There are a number of previous cases that have come before the Tenancy Tribunal and the Courts where the question of whether an agreement is a flat sharing agreement or not has been considered.
In Whitelock v McConway 1 the subject premises were a sleepout, contained in a building which also contained the family shower and laundry room. The facilities within the sleepout where the tenant lived were limited in that there was no kitchen or sitting room. The tenant was expected to share the shower and laundry with the family. It was found that the exclusion in s 5(1)(n) applied and so the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim.
The word “flatmate” does not in itself define the nature of the legal relationship between a flatmate and a landlord. The word is no more than a convenient label reflecting a functional reality; and it remains necessary to ascertain the legal nature of the relationship on the basis of the evidence. 1 DC Christchurch, C IV 2010 0092030
A useful analysis of the term “flatmates” is found in the District Court decision of Musson v Dobrisek DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006- 032-36, 5 May 2006 where the landlord considered himself to be the “head tenant” and that he rented the other rooms to others whom he considered to be “flatmates”.
On the issue of whether the legal relationship between a head tenant and the other occupants were flatmates of the head tenant, Judge Broadmore stated (at [22]): “By ‘flatmates’ I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, all occupants are on the same footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens.”
Some of the factors to take into account when determining the issue include: a. The person to whom the tenant pays the rent, in this case, the landlord (owner); b. The understanding that exists between the parties; c. When the tenant occupied the premises and on whose authority.
I find that the evidence establishes clearly that this was a shared flatting situation between the owner of the property and the tenant. The relationship between Ms Merritt and the tenant was not that of landlord and tenant, rather flatmates. The parties have each had occupation of their own bedrooms of a townhouse, sharing facilities in the usual way of flatmates.
The arrangement was for the tenant to reside at the property as a flatmate, with the tenant being liable to pay the owner, and the parties sharing common living areas.
I am entirely satisfied that the living arrangement was a flatting type of agreement and excluded from the terms of the RTA.
The exception to the RTA under section 5(1)(n) applies.
The appropriate course would be for the applicant to re-commence her claim in the Disputes Tribunal, should she wish to continue with this. That Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear and determine this dispute between the parties.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim.
The application is dismissed.

Order

By declaration, the agreement between [The landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] in relation to the premises at 23/172 McLeod Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland is not a residential tenancy and is therefore not subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this application.
The Applicant will need to pursue the matter before the Disputes Tribunal should she wish to do so.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote video conference.
A preliminary question arises in this case, namely, whether or not the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim, by virtue of s 5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental and must be decided before the Tribunal can go on to make any other findings in a case. Put simply, if there is no jurisdiction, then I cannot proceed to hear the case.
Ms Merritt is the landlord and the owner of the property. The premises consist of a 3-bedroom, two-bathroom townhouse.
Other than exclusive use of her own bedroom the ‘tenant’ shares all other facilities within the house. She uses the same kitchen, bathrooms and indoor and outdoor living areas. She pays her rent to the landlord owner.
On 13 March 2025 the parties signed an ‘Accommodation Sharing Agreement’. for the above address. The terms of the agreement were as follows:
Rent: $200.00 per week which included power, water and internet
Bond $400.00
Tenancy commencement: 22 March 2025
Notice period: 4 weeks – in person or in writing
...
The tenant vacated the premises on or about 23 August 2025.
The landlord seeks rent arrears, power and water expenses.
There is an issue as to whether or not this is a flatting type of arrangement and if the premises continued to be used principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the landlord’s family and thus excluded from the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)).
If the parties are in a flatting situation then I do not have jurisdiction. The issue that I must determine is whether the relationship was a flat sharing agreement of premises shared with the applicant. If so, then the exclusion in s 5(1)(n) will apply and the RTA will not apply.
There are a number of previous cases that have come before the Tenancy Tribunal and the Courts where the question of whether an agreement is a flat sharing agreement or not has been considered.
In Whitelock v McConway 1 the subject premises were a sleepout, contained in a building which also contained the family shower and laundry room. The facilities within the sleepout where the tenant lived were limited in that there was no kitchen or sitting room. The tenant was expected to share the shower and laundry with the family. It was found that the exclusion in s 5(1)(n) applied and so the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim.
The word “flatmate” does not in itself define the nature of the legal relationship between a flatmate and a landlord. The word is no more than a convenient label reflecting a functional reality; and it remains necessary to ascertain the legal nature of the relationship on the basis of the evidence. 1 DC Christchurch, C IV 2010 0092030
A useful analysis of the term “flatmates” is found in the District Court decision of Musson v Dobrisek DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006- 032-36, 5 May 2006 where the landlord considered himself to be the “head tenant” and that he rented the other rooms to others whom he considered to be “flatmates”.
On the issue of whether the legal relationship between a head tenant and the other occupants were flatmates of the head tenant, Judge Broadmore stated (at [22]): “By ‘flatmates’ I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, all occupants are on the same footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens.”
Some of the factors to take into account when determining the issue include: a. The person to whom the tenant pays the rent, in this case, the landlord (owner); b. The understanding that exists between the parties; c. When the tenant occupied the premises and on whose authority.
I find that the evidence establishes clearly that this was a shared flatting situation between the owner of the property and the tenant. The relationship between Ms Merritt and the tenant was not that of landlord and tenant, rather flatmates. The parties have each had occupation of their own bedrooms of a townhouse, sharing facilities in the usual way of flatmates.
The arrangement was for the tenant to reside at the property as a flatmate, with the tenant being liable to pay the owner, and the parties sharing common living areas.
I am entirely satisfied that the living arrangement was a flatting type of agreement and excluded from the terms of the RTA.
The exception to the RTA under section 5(1)(n) applies.
The appropriate course would be for the applicant to re-commence her claim in the Disputes Tribunal, should she wish to continue with this. That Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear and determine this dispute between the parties.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim.
The application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5332403 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 23, 172 McLeod Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5332403 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 23, 172 McLeod Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions