What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338147 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5338147?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338147?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338147?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12892937-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338147 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5338147?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338147?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338147?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12892937-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5338147 — Boarding House

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants and the Landlords names and identifying details.
The Tribunal finds it has jurisdiction to hear the tenants’ substantive claims.
The matter is adjourned and A further 150 minutes (2.5 hours) should be allowed for the next hearing of this matter, scheduled before me at this Court on the next available date.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 17 December 2025.
The tenants/sub-tenants were assisted by a Cantonese Interpreter and the landlords/head tenants were assisted by a Mandarin Interpreter.
The tenants/sub-tenants referred me to the decision from the Disputes Tribunal to adjourn their Disputes Tribunal application until the Tenancy Tribunal decides about whether it has jurisdiction to hear the tenants/sub-tenants claims. The Disputes Tribunal required the sub-tenants to make this application before it will hear their original claim. 4 . At the hearing I told the parties I would hear and determine the issue of jurisdiction first, before hearing the sub-tenants’ substantive claims.
The landlords/head tenants argue that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) does not apply to this tenancy because: a. The non-head tenant occupants were granted exclusive rights to occupy a bedroom and use shared facilities under a written and signed flatmate agreement; b. The non-head tenants did not have exclusive occupation of the premise, only the landlords/head tenants had been granted the exclusive right to occupy the premises under a tenancy agreement they signed with Street Smart Property Management Ltd a few days before the tenants/sub tenants rented the master bedroom and ensuite and use of shared facilities; c. Throughout the tenants/sub tenants tenancy, there were other concurrent flatmates; d. Flatmates had keys to their bedrooms only and to shared common areas; Binds were held and refunded by the head tenants under the flatmate agreements; e. Standard rules included no additional heater/air-con without permission and that any electricity from such appliances is a separate charge— consistent with shared-house risk and fair-use utilities.
The tenants/sub-tenants claim the relationship was one of landlords/head tenants and tenants/sub-tenants as they had exclusive occupation of the master bedroom and ensuite and use of the shared facilities and that none of the s5 of the RTA exceptions apply. Therefore, they say the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear their substantive claims. The landlords/head tenants disagree but were unable to confirm to me which of the s5 exceptions apply. Were [names suppressed], tenants or flatmates from 12 July 2024 to 3 May 2025?
Section 4 of the Act reads: “This Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.” Prima facie, the premises at [addressed suppressed] (the premises) were used for residential purposes and as such as a starting point is covered by the RTA, unless a section 5 exemption applies, and the parties did not contract back into the RTA.
“Tenancy” is defined in section 2 of the Act as follows: “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 ....”.
Section 5 of the Act contains the exceptions to the RTA
The parties have confirmed that the landlords/head tenants never used the premise as their principal place of residence, nor did any member of their family. In fact, the landlords/head tenants stated very clearly that they never lived at the premise at all. They sublet the individual rooms in a house they fully furnished themselves, but rented from Street Smart Property Management Ltd. The tenants/sub tenants rented these rooms and use of the shared facilities over varying lengths of time, but all stays were for greater than 28 days.
s 5(1)(n) of the RTA provides: “...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 owner’s family.”
s 5(1)(k) of the RTA provides: Where the premises— (i)are intended to provide temporary or transient accommodation (such as that provided by hotels and motels), being accommodation that is ordinarily provided for periods of less than 28 days at a time; and (ii)are subject to an agreement that has been entered into for the purpose of providing temporary or transient accommodation that continues to be provided under the agreement:.”
The evidence provided proves that sections 5(1)(n) and 5(1)(k) of the RTA do not apply.
There were more than two occupants in the premises at any one time that held flatmate agreements, it is necessary to determine if this was a boarding house tenancy.
Section 66B of the RTA defines a boarding house as: a. containing 1 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 parties confirmed that there have never been six or more persons residing in the premise at any one time nor was there ever any intention to have 6 or more persons residing at the premise at any one time. The tenants/sub-tenants confirmed the other three bedrooms have always been occupied by one single person, as all those rooms are no large enough to accommodate a couple. The only room big enough for a couple was the room occupied by the tenant/sub- tenant and his partner. Therefore, the premise does not meet the s66B definition of a boarding house.
The parties confirmed that the between 3 to 5 flatmates shared kitchen, dining, lounge, laundry and bathroom/toilet facilities and had access to and use of the yard. They also confirmed that all bedrooms had locks on them and were not accessible each by the other. Therefor this was not a boarding house.
No other s5 of the RTA exceptions are relevant to this tenancy.
Section 2 of the RTA, defines a landlord as “in relation to any residential premises that are subject to a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement...”
The landlords/head tenants granted the right to the tenants/sub-tenants to rent a room and to share the other household facilities with the other short term or longer-term tenants.
The landlords/head tenants argued in their written evidence that the tenants/sub- tenants signed a flat sharing agreement and agreed to rent the room under those terms contained and should be held to those terms.
Section 11 of the RTA states: “Any agreement or arrangement, or any provision of any agreement or arrangement, entered into in respect of a tenancy to which this Act applies, that is inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act, or that purports to exclude, modify, or restrict the operation of any such provision, shall be of no effect unless (a) the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction is expressly permitted by this Act; or (b) the Tribunal is satisfied that, having regard to the nature of the tenancy, the provisions of the tenancy agreement, the interests of the parties, and all other relevant circumstances of the case, the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction should be permitted”.
The terms of the agreement do not reflect the true nature to the relationship between the landlords/head tenants and the tenants/sub-tenants. As such, s11 of the RTA provides that the Tribunal must look past the word of the agreement, and apply the requirements set out in the RTA of parties in a residential tenancy. Further, the RTA confirms that landlords cannot contract out of the RTA.
The tenants/sub-tenants have successfully proven the relationship they had with the landlords/head tenants was one of tenant and landlord and the RTA provisions that relate residential tenancies apply to the rental and exclusive use of the tenant’s bedroom and ensuite but not to the shared spaces. Conclusion
The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the tenants/sub-tenants claims.
The parties will be notified in writing by Tenancy Services of the date and time of the next half day hearing, which will be held face to face at this Court before me on the next available date. A mandarin interpreter will be provided to the landlords/ head tenants and a Cantonese interpreter will be provided to the tenants/sub-tenants. Name suppression
The tenants/sub-tenants have applied for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants/sub-tenants have wholly succeeded in this proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants/sub-tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication of the tenants/sub-tenants’ names and identifying details is ordered.
The landlords/head-tenants have not wholly or substantially succeeded with their claims, but I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlords/head-tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case. Non-publication of the landlords/head-tenants names and identifying details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338147 — Boarding House

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338147 — Boarding House

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