What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5346461 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 5346461?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5346461?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5346461?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12727179-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5346461 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 5346461?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5346461?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5346461?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12727179-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

170 Dunning Road, Whangaripo, RD4, Wellsford 0974 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5346461 — Boarding House

Order

By declaration, the agreement between [The landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] in relation to the premises at 170 Dunning Road, Whangaripo, RD4, Wellsford 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 he 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.
The arrangement began on or about 1 September 2024.
The tenant says that the boundary is at the back end of the property. The tenant was living in a bus on the neighbouring property. The arrangement was that the landlord advised the tenant that he was heading overseas and that he could use his house while he was out of the country, and that rent would be payable at the rate of $200.00 per week.
The tenant believed that it was an informal house-sitting arrangement. The landlord intended it to be a rental situation. The landlord did not prepare a written tenancy agreement.
No bond was paid.
At the start of the tenancy the tenant and his business partner were the only persons living there. The landlord returned to New Zealand on two occasions and lived at the address. The tenant continued paying rent during this time. The landlord says that the arrangement was for a period of 6 to 12 months.
The tenant also stated during the hearing that at times he undertook work on the property which was payment in lieu of rent. This included lawns and tree maintenance.
The landlord maintains that they both agreed that rent would be paid of $200.00 per week.
The tenant says had exclusive use of the premises until the landlord arrived back from Melbourne in middle of November. He stayed for one month until departing for Thailand and then arrived back in Auckland again on 2 February 2025.
The landlord claims outstanding rent and utility charges.
There is an issue as to whether or not this is a house-sitting 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).
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 house sharing agreement or not has been considered.
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; b. The understanding that exists between the parties at the start of the arrangement; c. When each tenant occupied the premises and on whose authority.
A preliminary issue for determination is whether the arrangement between the parties constitutes a tenancy agreement to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies.
Section 77(1) of the RTA provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies.
Section 2(1) defines a tenancy as the right to occupy residential premises in consideration for rent.
Section 5(1)(n) of the RTA provides that the Act does not apply 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 by any member of the landlord’s family.
In this case, the evidence is that the landlord occasionally returned from Melbourne and lived at the premises during the relevant period. The substance of the arrangement must be considered, rather than the labels applied by the parties.
Given that the landlord continued to use the premises as a place of residence during the arrangement, I find that section 5(1)(n) applies, and the arrangement is excluded from the RTA.
Accordingly, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the dispute.
The application is dismissed.
The appropriate course is for the applicant to re-commence his claim in the Disputes Tribunal, should he wish to continue with this. That Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear and determine this dispute between the parties.
The tenant applied for non-publication of his name and identifying details.
There is nothing to warrant a departure from the principle of open justice. I do not make any suppression orders regarding the publication of this decision.

Order

By declaration, the agreement between [The landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] in relation to the premises at 170 Dunning Road, Whangaripo, RD4, Wellsford 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 he 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.
The arrangement began on or about 1 September 2024.
The tenant says that the boundary is at the back end of the property. The tenant was living in a bus on the neighbouring property. The arrangement was that the landlord advised the tenant that he was heading overseas and that he could use his house while he was out of the country, and that rent would be payable at the rate of $200.00 per week.
The tenant believed that it was an informal house-sitting arrangement. The landlord intended it to be a rental situation. The landlord did not prepare a written tenancy agreement.
No bond was paid.
At the start of the tenancy the tenant and his business partner were the only persons living there. The landlord returned to New Zealand on two occasions and lived at the address. The tenant continued paying rent during this time. The landlord says that the arrangement was for a period of 6 to 12 months.
The tenant also stated during the hearing that at times he undertook work on the property which was payment in lieu of rent. This included lawns and tree maintenance.
The landlord maintains that they both agreed that rent would be paid of $200.00 per week.
The tenant says had exclusive use of the premises until the landlord arrived back from Melbourne in middle of November. He stayed for one month until departing for Thailand and then arrived back in Auckland again on 2 February 2025.
The landlord claims outstanding rent and utility charges.
There is an issue as to whether or not this is a house-sitting 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).
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 house sharing agreement or not has been considered.
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; b. The understanding that exists between the parties at the start of the arrangement; c. When each tenant occupied the premises and on whose authority.
A preliminary issue for determination is whether the arrangement between the parties constitutes a tenancy agreement to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies.
Section 77(1) of the RTA provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies.
Section 2(1) defines a tenancy as the right to occupy residential premises in consideration for rent.
Section 5(1)(n) of the RTA provides that the Act does not apply 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 by any member of the landlord’s family.
In this case, the evidence is that the landlord occasionally returned from Melbourne and lived at the premises during the relevant period. The substance of the arrangement must be considered, rather than the labels applied by the parties.
Given that the landlord continued to use the premises as a place of residence during the arrangement, I find that section 5(1)(n) applies, and the arrangement is excluded from the RTA.
Accordingly, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the dispute.
The application is dismissed.
The appropriate course is for the applicant to re-commence his claim in the Disputes Tribunal, should he wish to continue with this. That Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear and determine this dispute between the parties.
The tenant applied for non-publication of his name and identifying details.
There is nothing to warrant a departure from the principle of open justice. I do not make any suppression orders regarding the publication of this decision.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5346461 — Boarding House at 170 Dunning Road, Whangaripo, RD4, Wellsford 0974

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5346461 — Boarding House at 170 Dunning Road, Whangaripo, RD4, Wellsford 0974

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