What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5359686?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 5359686?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5359686?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5359686?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13118122-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5359686?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 5359686?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5359686?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5359686?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13118122-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Ground Floor, 2 Seddon Street, Grey Lynn, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5359686 — Boarding House

Order

The application is dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 12 February 2026.
The tenant applied for refund of the full bond and refund of the rent paid. The tenant claimed that there was misrepresentation, the landlord failed to provide vacant possession, the landlord had unlawfully retained bond instead of lodging it with the Bond Centre, imposed undisclosed charges and breached fire safety standards. The tenant also sought for declaration that the tenancy was unlawful and sought compensation for damages and costs resulting from the breaches.
The landlord claimed that they were exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) due to the nature of their living arrangements.
The landlord had advertised on Trade Me for “short term rental” with the ground floor rent being $850.00 per week and the garden floor rent being $750.00 per week. The advertisement noted that it was the owner’s own home with “lovely art and antiques.”
It also stated: “please apply for either or both of the two floors together if you want 3 or 4 bedrooms but as our own home, please tell me a little about who is in your group and your preferred dates.”
The advertisement noted that the premises was available from 2 nd September 2025 to early October 2025 with “a little bit of flexibility.”
On 31 August 2025, the parties signed a “short-term fixed-term tenancy agreement” for tenancy between 4 September 2025 and 2 October 2025.
The landlord explained that it was only to cover while they were overseas attending a wedding and that the landlord was able to make room for the tenant’s clothes and tenant’s food in the freezer.
The tenant agreed to take the ground floor which included the kitchen.
The tenant paid 4 weeks for bond and 2 weeks’ rent in advance.
On 1 September 2025, a day before the tenancy was to officially begin, the tenant texted the landlord that she was uncomfortable with the booking. She had security concerns due to having to share the laundry with the tenant downstairs.
The tenant demanded full refund of the bond and the rent.
The landlord refunded two week’s bond and expenses but retained the four weeks’ rent.
The tenant applied to the Tribunal for the claims mentioned above.
The question to be determined by the Tribunal is whether the RTA applies to the parties.
Section 5(1)(n) RTA states that the RTA 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 the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.
There is no dispute that the landlord was only going to be overseas temporarily for a wedding.
The landlord’s address for service as put forward by the tenant was the tenancy address itself. The landlord came back after their overseas trip and occupied the tenancy address again.
Although they have an investment property elsewhere, they do not live anywhere other than at this address.
Going overseas temporarily for holiday does not change the landlord’s principal place of residence. Otherwise, tenancies will have to fluctuate between RTA tenancy and house sharing flatmate situations depending on whether the landlord is overseas or not at any particular time.
I find that this was a situation where section 5(1)(n) RTA applies.
Therefore, I dismiss the tenant’s application due to lack of jurisdiction.
The tenant should re-lodge her claim with the Disputes Tribunal instead of the Tenancy Tribunal if the tenant is wishing for her claim to be determined by a Tribunal.

Order

The application is dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 12 February 2026.
The tenant applied for refund of the full bond and refund of the rent paid. The tenant claimed that there was misrepresentation, the landlord failed to provide vacant possession, the landlord had unlawfully retained bond instead of lodging it with the Bond Centre, imposed undisclosed charges and breached fire safety standards. The tenant also sought for declaration that the tenancy was unlawful and sought compensation for damages and costs resulting from the breaches.
The landlord claimed that they were exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) due to the nature of their living arrangements.
The landlord had advertised on Trade Me for “short term rental” with the ground floor rent being $850.00 per week and the garden floor rent being $750.00 per week. The advertisement noted that it was the owner’s own home with “lovely art and antiques.”
It also stated: “please apply for either or both of the two floors together if you want 3 or 4 bedrooms but as our own home, please tell me a little about who is in your group and your preferred dates.”
The advertisement noted that the premises was available from 2 nd September 2025 to early October 2025 with “a little bit of flexibility.”
On 31 August 2025, the parties signed a “short-term fixed-term tenancy agreement” for tenancy between 4 September 2025 and 2 October 2025.
The landlord explained that it was only to cover while they were overseas attending a wedding and that the landlord was able to make room for the tenant’s clothes and tenant’s food in the freezer.
The tenant agreed to take the ground floor which included the kitchen.
The tenant paid 4 weeks for bond and 2 weeks’ rent in advance.
On 1 September 2025, a day before the tenancy was to officially begin, the tenant texted the landlord that she was uncomfortable with the booking. She had security concerns due to having to share the laundry with the tenant downstairs.
The tenant demanded full refund of the bond and the rent.
The landlord refunded two week’s bond and expenses but retained the four weeks’ rent.
The tenant applied to the Tribunal for the claims mentioned above.
The question to be determined by the Tribunal is whether the RTA applies to the parties.
Section 5(1)(n) RTA states that the RTA 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 the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.
There is no dispute that the landlord was only going to be overseas temporarily for a wedding.
The landlord’s address for service as put forward by the tenant was the tenancy address itself. The landlord came back after their overseas trip and occupied the tenancy address again.
Although they have an investment property elsewhere, they do not live anywhere other than at this address.
Going overseas temporarily for holiday does not change the landlord’s principal place of residence. Otherwise, tenancies will have to fluctuate between RTA tenancy and house sharing flatmate situations depending on whether the landlord is overseas or not at any particular time.
I find that this was a situation where section 5(1)(n) RTA applies.
Therefore, I dismiss the tenant’s application due to lack of jurisdiction.
The tenant should re-lodge her claim with the Disputes Tribunal instead of the Tenancy Tribunal if the tenant is wishing for her claim to be determined by a Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5359686 — Boarding House at Unit/Flat Ground Floor, 2 Seddon Street, Grey Lynn,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5359686 — Boarding House at Unit/Flat Ground Floor, 2 Seddon Street, Grey Lynn,

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