What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5348341 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the applicant and the respondent’s names

How much money was awarded in case 5348341?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5348341?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5348341?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12868987-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5348341 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the applicant and the respondent’s names

How much money was awarded in case 5348341?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5348341?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5348341?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12868987-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5348341 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the applicant and the respondent’s names and all identifying details including the address of the premises.
By way of declaration, the arrangement between the parties is not a residential tenancy and is therefore not subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear and consider the application. The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via a remote video conference. The applicant was represented by [The applicant’s representative].
The applicant lived at the respondent’s home from the 1st of August 2025 until the 17th of September 2025. The house has 4 bedrooms with two bathrooms and two lounges, and has internal garage access. The respondent’s young daughter also resides at the property. Rent of $230 per week was paid by the applicant.
The applicant has filed a claim with the Tenancy Tribunal for refund of her bond and for matters relating to entry by the respondent’s agents/family without notice; breach of privacy; having to leave the property without proper notice; and for goods that remain at the property.
However there is a preliminary issue as to whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s claim, which needs to be resolved before the substantive claim made by the applicant can be heard. Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental and must be decided before the Tribunal can determine any matters claimed.

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute between a landlord and a tenant that relates to a residential tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies 1 . The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine disputes between parties other than those in a landlord and tenant relationship.
Section 2 RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the tenancy agreement. A tenant is someone who is granted a tenancy by the landlord. A tenant is someone who rents the premises directly from the landlord and who usually has a written tenancy agreement which records they are a tenant.
Section 5 RTA details exclusions to the RTA. Section 5(1)(n) specifically excludes arrangements where the premises are being used by the landlord principally as their place of residence.
In the District Court decision of Musson v Dobrisek, Catley and Low 2 , Judge Broadmore stated, while excluding flatmate relationships from being under the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal, that “...the use of the word “flatmate” does not in itself define the nature of the legal relationship between a flatmate and any landlord”....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."
The key issue here is whether the applicant is a tenant and the respondent is a landlord, or whether the applicant was a flatmate of the respondent’s.
On 1 August 2025 the parties signed a ‘Flat/house - sharing agreement’. The terms of the agreement included: • either party can terminate the tenancy by 28 days’ notice in writing • the parties agree that in the event of a dispute it is to be determined by the Disputes Tribunal.
The parties agreed that they shared the kitchen and other facilities; that the applicant used a bathroom that sometimes was used by the respondent’s 1 See section 77, RTA 2 CIV 2006-032-36 5 May 2006 daughter, but that the respondent had her own ensuite; and that the applicant mainly used one of the lounges and the respondent used the other lounge.
The applicant says she believed the situation was a flatmate arrangement to start with but that the landlord used the word “tenant” towards the end of the arrangement, when conflict occurred between them. As a result she believed the arrangement had become a tenancy.
The respondent said she had advertised for a flatmate and that they completed a flatmate agreement as that was the basis of the arrangement. The respondent denies that there was ever an intention of her being a tenant and or that she referred to the applicant as being “a tenant” in communication with her.
Having considered the submissions and evidence of the parties I am satisfied that the arrangement between the applicant and the respondent is one of a flatmate arrangement. The applicant paid rent to the respondent and her share of the services/bills. The respondent did not pay the bond to the Bond Centre. I note there is no evidence of the respondent using the term ‘tenancy’ in the emails/texts or other communication provided to the Tribunal.
I find the parties only ever intended it to be a flat sharing arrangement, as evidenced by the agreement they signed. The evidence leads me to the conclusion that they did not at any stage in forming the contract/arrangement, consider it be to a tenancy under the RTA and had no intention at that time to be bound by the obligations and responsibilities the RTA sets out for landlords and tenants.
The arrangement between the parties is therefore excluded. The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter and the claim is dismissed.
As explained at the hearing disputes arising from this relationship should be determined in the Disputes Tribunal.
Suppression: I suppress the names of both parties and the identifying details of the tenancy, including the address of the tenancy. In doing so I have had regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest and do not consider there is any public interest in having the names of the parties published or the details of the tenancy, including the address.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the applicant and the respondent’s names and all identifying details including the address of the premises.
By way of declaration, the arrangement between the parties is not a residential tenancy and is therefore not subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear and consider the application. The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via a remote video conference. The applicant was represented by [The applicant’s representative].
The applicant lived at the respondent’s home from the 1st of August 2025 until the 17th of September 2025. The house has 4 bedrooms with two bathrooms and two lounges, and has internal garage access. The respondent’s young daughter also resides at the property. Rent of $230 per week was paid by the applicant.
The applicant has filed a claim with the Tenancy Tribunal for refund of her bond and for matters relating to entry by the respondent’s agents/family without notice; breach of privacy; having to leave the property without proper notice; and for goods that remain at the property.
However there is a preliminary issue as to whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s claim, which needs to be resolved before the substantive claim made by the applicant can be heard. Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental and must be decided before the Tribunal can determine any matters claimed.

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute between a landlord and a tenant that relates to a residential tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies 1 . The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine disputes between parties other than those in a landlord and tenant relationship.
Section 2 RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the tenancy agreement. A tenant is someone who is granted a tenancy by the landlord. A tenant is someone who rents the premises directly from the landlord and who usually has a written tenancy agreement which records they are a tenant.
Section 5 RTA details exclusions to the RTA. Section 5(1)(n) specifically excludes arrangements where the premises are being used by the landlord principally as their place of residence.
In the District Court decision of Musson v Dobrisek, Catley and Low 2 , Judge Broadmore stated, while excluding flatmate relationships from being under the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal, that “...the use of the word “flatmate” does not in itself define the nature of the legal relationship between a flatmate and any landlord”....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."
The key issue here is whether the applicant is a tenant and the respondent is a landlord, or whether the applicant was a flatmate of the respondent’s.
On 1 August 2025 the parties signed a ‘Flat/house - sharing agreement’. The terms of the agreement included: • either party can terminate the tenancy by 28 days’ notice in writing • the parties agree that in the event of a dispute it is to be determined by the Disputes Tribunal.
The parties agreed that they shared the kitchen and other facilities; that the applicant used a bathroom that sometimes was used by the respondent’s 1 See section 77, RTA 2 CIV 2006-032-36 5 May 2006 daughter, but that the respondent had her own ensuite; and that the applicant mainly used one of the lounges and the respondent used the other lounge.
The applicant says she believed the situation was a flatmate arrangement to start with but that the landlord used the word “tenant” towards the end of the arrangement, when conflict occurred between them. As a result she believed the arrangement had become a tenancy.
The respondent said she had advertised for a flatmate and that they completed a flatmate agreement as that was the basis of the arrangement. The respondent denies that there was ever an intention of her being a tenant and or that she referred to the applicant as being “a tenant” in communication with her.
Having considered the submissions and evidence of the parties I am satisfied that the arrangement between the applicant and the respondent is one of a flatmate arrangement. The applicant paid rent to the respondent and her share of the services/bills. The respondent did not pay the bond to the Bond Centre. I note there is no evidence of the respondent using the term ‘tenancy’ in the emails/texts or other communication provided to the Tribunal.
I find the parties only ever intended it to be a flat sharing arrangement, as evidenced by the agreement they signed. The evidence leads me to the conclusion that they did not at any stage in forming the contract/arrangement, consider it be to a tenancy under the RTA and had no intention at that time to be bound by the obligations and responsibilities the RTA sets out for landlords and tenants.
The arrangement between the parties is therefore excluded. The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter and the claim is dismissed.
As explained at the hearing disputes arising from this relationship should be determined in the Disputes Tribunal.
Suppression: I suppress the names of both parties and the identifying details of the tenancy, including the address of the tenancy. In doing so I have had regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest and do not consider there is any public interest in having the names of the parties published or the details of the tenancy, including the address.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5348341 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5348341 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions