What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5342398 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5342398?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5342398?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5342398?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12906568-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5342398 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5342398?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5342398?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5342398?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12906568-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

193 Great South Road, Otahuhu, Auckland 1051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5342398 — Rent arrears

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by teleconference.
Ms Lin, for the landlord, and Ms Chen, the tenant, attended the hearing. Introduction
This matter concerns an application filed by the Taiwanese Hwa Hsia Society of New Zealand Incorporated (“the Society” or “the landlord”) seeking termination of a tenancy and payment of rent arrears allegedly owed by Ms. Chen (“the tenant”).
The Society claims that Ms. Chen rented a space at its property to place a small prefab structure described as a “tiny house” or “cabin.” The Society seeks rent arrears of $6,852 and termination of the alleged tenancy.
Ms. Chen disputes that any residential tenancy existed and contends that the structure in question is a storage shed, not a dwelling, and that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the matter under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Landlord’s submissions
The Society submits that in November 2023 Ms. Chen leased a space at the property to locate a “tiny house” or “cabin” and agreed to pay $84 per week in rent. It claims Ms. Chen paid rent for the first two months only and subsequently ceased payments, resulting in arrears of $6,852.
The Society issued a formal Notice of Termination and Demand for Unpaid Rent on 13 August 2025, giving Ms. Chen 30 days to remove the structure and to clear the arrears.
It submits that Ms. Chen later claimed the cabin had been donated to the Society, but there is no record of any Board resolution or donation agreement.
The Society therefore seeks an order for termination of tenancy and recovery of rent arrears. Tenant’s submissions
Ms. Chen denies that any residential tenancy relationship exists. In her written submissions, she states that the “cabin” has never been used or intended for occupation as a residence and has been used solely for storage purposes.
She submits that the structure lacks facilities such as running water, a functioning toilet, or a kitchen, and that it has never been occupied as a dwelling.
Accordingly, Ms. Chen argues that the structure does not constitute “residential premises” under section 2 of the RTA, meaning the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine the matter. Analysis
It also does not make a material difference if the structure is described as a shed, a cabin or a tiny house. The key question for determination is whether the premises in question constitute “residential premises” under section 2 of the RTA.
That section defines “residential premises” as: “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.”
The photographic evidence submitted by Ms Chen demonstrates that the structure is a small prefabricated shed situated on the Society’s property. It is not clear from the evidence where it is located on the Society’s property.
Photographs submitted to the Tribunal show a metal-clad unit containing boxes and storage items, a non-functional toilet, and no visible kitchen, plumbing, or water connections.
There is no evidence that the structure has ever been occupied as a place of residence.
Even if the parties had some form of rental arrangement, the purpose of occupation as a residential premises is determinative.
The evidence supports the conclusion that the structure was not used or intended for occupation as a residence, but rather for storage or other non- residential purposes.
As such, it does not fall within the definition of residential premises under section 2 of the RTA.
If the premises is not residential, then any agreement between the parties would not be a residential tenancy in nature, and the matter would be excluded from the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under section 5(1)(a) of the RTA, which excludes commercial premises.
Accordingly, I have no jurisdiction to hear or determine this dispute.
The appropriate forum to hear the dispute may be the Dispute Tribunal. Conclusion and Outcome
I find that the structure in question is a shed used for storage, not a residential premises within the meaning of section 2 of the RTA.
Therefore, under section 5(1)(a) of the RTA, the premises are commercial premises, and the Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with this matter.
The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Name suppression
The Society sought an order for name suppression.
In my view, there is a public interest in publishing the parties’ names, as this dispute appears to be an internal matter between members of the Society and should not have been brought before the Tenancy Tribunal.
It is also important for the public to understand that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear or determine matters that do not fall within the definition of “residential premises” under section 2 of the RTA.
Accordingly, the Society’s application for name suppression is declined.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by teleconference.
Ms Lin, for the landlord, and Ms Chen, the tenant, attended the hearing. Introduction
This matter concerns an application filed by the Taiwanese Hwa Hsia Society of New Zealand Incorporated (“the Society” or “the landlord”) seeking termination of a tenancy and payment of rent arrears allegedly owed by Ms. Chen (“the tenant”).
The Society claims that Ms. Chen rented a space at its property to place a small prefab structure described as a “tiny house” or “cabin.” The Society seeks rent arrears of $6,852 and termination of the alleged tenancy.
Ms. Chen disputes that any residential tenancy existed and contends that the structure in question is a storage shed, not a dwelling, and that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the matter under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Landlord’s submissions
The Society submits that in November 2023 Ms. Chen leased a space at the property to locate a “tiny house” or “cabin” and agreed to pay $84 per week in rent. It claims Ms. Chen paid rent for the first two months only and subsequently ceased payments, resulting in arrears of $6,852.
The Society issued a formal Notice of Termination and Demand for Unpaid Rent on 13 August 2025, giving Ms. Chen 30 days to remove the structure and to clear the arrears.
It submits that Ms. Chen later claimed the cabin had been donated to the Society, but there is no record of any Board resolution or donation agreement.
The Society therefore seeks an order for termination of tenancy and recovery of rent arrears. Tenant’s submissions
Ms. Chen denies that any residential tenancy relationship exists. In her written submissions, she states that the “cabin” has never been used or intended for occupation as a residence and has been used solely for storage purposes.
She submits that the structure lacks facilities such as running water, a functioning toilet, or a kitchen, and that it has never been occupied as a dwelling.
Accordingly, Ms. Chen argues that the structure does not constitute “residential premises” under section 2 of the RTA, meaning the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine the matter. Analysis
It also does not make a material difference if the structure is described as a shed, a cabin or a tiny house. The key question for determination is whether the premises in question constitute “residential premises” under section 2 of the RTA.
That section defines “residential premises” as: “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.”
The photographic evidence submitted by Ms Chen demonstrates that the structure is a small prefabricated shed situated on the Society’s property. It is not clear from the evidence where it is located on the Society’s property.
Photographs submitted to the Tribunal show a metal-clad unit containing boxes and storage items, a non-functional toilet, and no visible kitchen, plumbing, or water connections.
There is no evidence that the structure has ever been occupied as a place of residence.
Even if the parties had some form of rental arrangement, the purpose of occupation as a residential premises is determinative.
The evidence supports the conclusion that the structure was not used or intended for occupation as a residence, but rather for storage or other non- residential purposes.
As such, it does not fall within the definition of residential premises under section 2 of the RTA.
If the premises is not residential, then any agreement between the parties would not be a residential tenancy in nature, and the matter would be excluded from the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under section 5(1)(a) of the RTA, which excludes commercial premises.
Accordingly, I have no jurisdiction to hear or determine this dispute.
The appropriate forum to hear the dispute may be the Dispute Tribunal. Conclusion and Outcome
I find that the structure in question is a shed used for storage, not a residential premises within the meaning of section 2 of the RTA.
Therefore, under section 5(1)(a) of the RTA, the premises are commercial premises, and the Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with this matter.
The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Name suppression
The Society sought an order for name suppression.
In my view, there is a public interest in publishing the parties’ names, as this dispute appears to be an internal matter between members of the Society and should not have been brought before the Tenancy Tribunal.
It is also important for the public to understand that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear or determine matters that do not fall within the definition of “residential premises” under section 2 of the RTA.
Accordingly, the Society’s application for name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5342398 — Rent arrears at 193 Great South Road, Otahuhu, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5342398 — Rent arrears at 193 Great South Road, Otahuhu, Auckland 1051

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