What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5355062 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 5355062?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,306.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5355062?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5355062?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12850670-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5355062 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 5355062?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,306.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5355062?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5355062?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12850670-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5355062 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5355062 — net $1,334.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 September 2025	$1,306.43	Rent arrears to 17 September 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,334.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,334.43

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Connor William Gibb must pay [The landlord/s] $1,334.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The application against Tipene Rongomai Waerea Gibson is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

[Mr J] attended the hearing for the landlord company. The respondents were phoned on the numbers provided but the calls went to voicemail.
The landlord owns a camping ground in [redacted]. On 7 July 2025 the landlord and Mr Gibb entered into a three-month fixed term tenancy agreement whereby Mr Gibb would rent a four-berth caravan in the camping ground for $295.00 per week.
Mr Gibson was apparently staying with Mr Gibb in the four-berth caravan and they wished to move into a larger, six berth, caravan. Therefore, on 19 July 2025, the landlord entered into a new periodic tenancy agreement with Mr Gibson to rent the six-berth caravan for $110.00 per week. The agreement records that this tenancy could be ended by the tenant giving two weeks notice. [Mr J] said that the agreement with Mr Gibb was that he would continue paying the weekly rent of $295.00 under the four-berth tenancy agreement until a new tenant was found for that caravan. Neither caravan is fully self-contained because they do not have bathrooms.
Both Mr Gibb and Mr Gibson vacated the six-berth caravan sometime around mid-August 2025 and stopped paying rent. Rent on the four-berth caravan agreement was paid up until 17 August 2025 and the landlord claims rent until a new tenant was found on 18 September 2025. He also claims rent under the agreement with Mr Gibson for the six-berth caravan.
A question arose as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claims.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims?

The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to hearing and determining disputes between landlords and tenants (and between landlords and a guarantor of a tenant’s obligations) provided the dispute is in relation to a tenancy that comes within the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The starting point in answering the question of whether the tenancy comes within the Act is section 4 which provides that the Act applies to all tenancies of residential premises unless specifically excluded.
Section 5 of the Act contains a list of occupancies which are excluded from the Act. The relevant exclusion here is section 5(1)(ta) which provides that the Act does not apply: “where the tenant occupies, under a tenancy agreement, a cabin, caravan, vehicle, tent, or other building structure that – (i)is located in a camping ground subject to regulations under the Health Act 1956; and (ii)is intended for human habitation for periods not exceeding 50 days in any continuous term of occupancy.”
[Mr J] said that the camping ground is a registered camping ground and is subject to the regulations under the Health Act 1956. However, he accepts that the tenancy with Mr Gibson was always intended to be temporary and not intended to last more than 50 consecutive days. I therefore find that the tenancy with Mr Gibson for the six-berth caravan falls within the exception in section 5(ta) of the Act and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim against him. The claim against Mr Gibson is therefore struck out.
However, I find that the Tribunal does have jurisdiction to hear the claim against Mr Gibb because I am satisfied that the section 5 (ta) exception (or any of the exceptions in section 5) do not apply to his tenancy. This is because the parties clearly intended that the tenancy would last longer than 50 consecutive days because they agreed to a three-month fixed term tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of Mr Gibb’s tenancy on 17 September 2025 (when the new tenant was found for the four-berth caravan).
The landlord has been successful in his claim against Mr Gibb and it is therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression
The landlord applied, in its application, for a suppression order.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The landlord has been fully successful in its claim against Mr Gibb and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply. I therefore make an order that the landlord’s names and identifying details be suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5355062 — net $1,334.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 September 2025	$1,306.43	Rent arrears to 17 September 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,334.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,334.43

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Connor William Gibb must pay [The landlord/s] $1,334.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The application against Tipene Rongomai Waerea Gibson is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

[Mr J] attended the hearing for the landlord company. The respondents were phoned on the numbers provided but the calls went to voicemail.
The landlord owns a camping ground in [redacted]. On 7 July 2025 the landlord and Mr Gibb entered into a three-month fixed term tenancy agreement whereby Mr Gibb would rent a four-berth caravan in the camping ground for $295.00 per week.
Mr Gibson was apparently staying with Mr Gibb in the four-berth caravan and they wished to move into a larger, six berth, caravan. Therefore, on 19 July 2025, the landlord entered into a new periodic tenancy agreement with Mr Gibson to rent the six-berth caravan for $110.00 per week. The agreement records that this tenancy could be ended by the tenant giving two weeks notice. [Mr J] said that the agreement with Mr Gibb was that he would continue paying the weekly rent of $295.00 under the four-berth tenancy agreement until a new tenant was found for that caravan. Neither caravan is fully self-contained because they do not have bathrooms.
Both Mr Gibb and Mr Gibson vacated the six-berth caravan sometime around mid-August 2025 and stopped paying rent. Rent on the four-berth caravan agreement was paid up until 17 August 2025 and the landlord claims rent until a new tenant was found on 18 September 2025. He also claims rent under the agreement with Mr Gibson for the six-berth caravan.
A question arose as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claims.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims?

The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to hearing and determining disputes between landlords and tenants (and between landlords and a guarantor of a tenant’s obligations) provided the dispute is in relation to a tenancy that comes within the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The starting point in answering the question of whether the tenancy comes within the Act is section 4 which provides that the Act applies to all tenancies of residential premises unless specifically excluded.
Section 5 of the Act contains a list of occupancies which are excluded from the Act. The relevant exclusion here is section 5(1)(ta) which provides that the Act does not apply: “where the tenant occupies, under a tenancy agreement, a cabin, caravan, vehicle, tent, or other building structure that – (i)is located in a camping ground subject to regulations under the Health Act 1956; and (ii)is intended for human habitation for periods not exceeding 50 days in any continuous term of occupancy.”
[Mr J] said that the camping ground is a registered camping ground and is subject to the regulations under the Health Act 1956. However, he accepts that the tenancy with Mr Gibson was always intended to be temporary and not intended to last more than 50 consecutive days. I therefore find that the tenancy with Mr Gibson for the six-berth caravan falls within the exception in section 5(ta) of the Act and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim against him. The claim against Mr Gibson is therefore struck out.
However, I find that the Tribunal does have jurisdiction to hear the claim against Mr Gibb because I am satisfied that the section 5 (ta) exception (or any of the exceptions in section 5) do not apply to his tenancy. This is because the parties clearly intended that the tenancy would last longer than 50 consecutive days because they agreed to a three-month fixed term tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of Mr Gibb’s tenancy on 17 September 2025 (when the new tenant was found for the four-berth caravan).
The landlord has been successful in his claim against Mr Gibb and it is therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression
The landlord applied, in its application, for a suppression order.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The landlord has been fully successful in its claim against Mr Gibb and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply. I therefore make an order that the landlord’s names and identifying details be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5355062 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5355062 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims?

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims?

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions