What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5360081 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5360081?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5360081?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5360081?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12929812-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5360081 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5360081?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5360081?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5360081?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12929812-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24A Bell Road, Waiwhetu, Lower Hutt 5010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5360081 — Rent arrears

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Applicant attended the hearing. The Tenant did not appear by video or answer telephone calls made by the Tribunal on the phone numbers provided.
The Applicants has applied for rent arrears, power bill arrears, disposal of Tenants belongings and reimbursement of the filing fee. Jurisdiction
There is a preliminary issue whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Todays hearing is to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the Applicants application.
Section 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. The terms ’residential premises’, ‘tenancy’, and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined as: residential premises means 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 tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises; and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement
Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Section 5(n) excludes arrangements where the premises are being used for residence by the Landlord or family. This section envisages home owners renting out spare rooms in a flatmate or boarding type situation.
Section 10 RTA provides that, where a party to proceedings contends that the Act does not apply, they must establish the facts supporting their contention. In other words, they have the burden of proving the Act does not apply.
The District Court in Adams v Massey University Palmerston North TT 43/94, 10 October 1994 provided that in order to give effect to the RTAs true intent, the exemptions in section 5 should be interpreted strictly.
The High Court decision of Harding v Shellevis, Tan and Caroto [2021] NZHC1265 found that the decisive factor in determining whether a premises is a separate household is the “self-contained character”, its exclusive use by the occupiers and exclusive use of the rest of the dwelling by the Appellant and her family.
The definition of ‘flatmates’ was found to be a co-operative arrangement whereby. 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 1 .
The Applicant and Respondent signed a document headed “Flat/house-sharing agreement” which was signed between the parties on 15 August 2025. The Applicant was listed as the Head tenant and the Respondent as the flatmate. The agreement was to commence on 14 August 2025 with rent being $200.00. The Respondent was to pay 33.3 percent of the utilities and should be any disputes, this would be determined by the Disputes Tribunal.
The Applicant submitted the property comprised three bedrooms. The Respondent’s bedroom was in a minor dwelling detached from the main dwelling which had no kitchen or bathroom facilities. The Respondent had full access to the kitchen and laundry in the main property where the Applicant lived with another flatmate. There was no separate power or water metre for the Respondents bedroom. Only the Respondent had access to the bedroom as it had its own lock. At the time the Respondent lived there, the Applicant and another flatmate also occupied the property. There was no capacity to have more than two flatmates residing at the property. The relationship between the parties was that of flatmates. The Respondent worked night shift so they hardly saw him. There was no separate water or electricity meter for the Respondents bedroom.
The Applicant has submitted he was a flatmate but also the Landlord because he owned the property.
In considering the evidence, I find this arrangement is a flat sharing agreement where the Respondent occupied one room, which was not self-contained, was not separately metred and required him to share communal facilities with the other flatmates. I find this agreement is not excluded pursuant to section 5(1)(n) RTA because the principal use of the property was not a place of residence by the Landlord. The Landlord occupied one of three bedrooms and appeared to have equal use of the common areas and shared facilities with the other occupants.
For these reasons, the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the application. The Applicant may wish to consider pursuing the Disputes Tribunal.
The application is dismissed.
Section 95A(1) provides that The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s 1 Tenant v Graddon [2021] NZRTT 4299640 name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
As the Applicant has not been successful in their claim, name suppression is not granted to the Applicant.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Applicant attended the hearing. The Tenant did not appear by video or answer telephone calls made by the Tribunal on the phone numbers provided.
The Applicants has applied for rent arrears, power bill arrears, disposal of Tenants belongings and reimbursement of the filing fee. Jurisdiction
There is a preliminary issue whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Todays hearing is to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the Applicants application.
Section 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. The terms ’residential premises’, ‘tenancy’, and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined as: residential premises means 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 tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises; and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement
Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Section 5(n) excludes arrangements where the premises are being used for residence by the Landlord or family. This section envisages home owners renting out spare rooms in a flatmate or boarding type situation.
Section 10 RTA provides that, where a party to proceedings contends that the Act does not apply, they must establish the facts supporting their contention. In other words, they have the burden of proving the Act does not apply.
The District Court in Adams v Massey University Palmerston North TT 43/94, 10 October 1994 provided that in order to give effect to the RTAs true intent, the exemptions in section 5 should be interpreted strictly.
The High Court decision of Harding v Shellevis, Tan and Caroto [2021] NZHC1265 found that the decisive factor in determining whether a premises is a separate household is the “self-contained character”, its exclusive use by the occupiers and exclusive use of the rest of the dwelling by the Appellant and her family.
The definition of ‘flatmates’ was found to be a co-operative arrangement whereby. 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 1 .
The Applicant and Respondent signed a document headed “Flat/house-sharing agreement” which was signed between the parties on 15 August 2025. The Applicant was listed as the Head tenant and the Respondent as the flatmate. The agreement was to commence on 14 August 2025 with rent being $200.00. The Respondent was to pay 33.3 percent of the utilities and should be any disputes, this would be determined by the Disputes Tribunal.
The Applicant submitted the property comprised three bedrooms. The Respondent’s bedroom was in a minor dwelling detached from the main dwelling which had no kitchen or bathroom facilities. The Respondent had full access to the kitchen and laundry in the main property where the Applicant lived with another flatmate. There was no separate power or water metre for the Respondents bedroom. Only the Respondent had access to the bedroom as it had its own lock. At the time the Respondent lived there, the Applicant and another flatmate also occupied the property. There was no capacity to have more than two flatmates residing at the property. The relationship between the parties was that of flatmates. The Respondent worked night shift so they hardly saw him. There was no separate water or electricity meter for the Respondents bedroom.
The Applicant has submitted he was a flatmate but also the Landlord because he owned the property.
In considering the evidence, I find this arrangement is a flat sharing agreement where the Respondent occupied one room, which was not self-contained, was not separately metred and required him to share communal facilities with the other flatmates. I find this agreement is not excluded pursuant to section 5(1)(n) RTA because the principal use of the property was not a place of residence by the Landlord. The Landlord occupied one of three bedrooms and appeared to have equal use of the common areas and shared facilities with the other occupants.
For these reasons, the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the application. The Applicant may wish to consider pursuing the Disputes Tribunal.
The application is dismissed.
Section 95A(1) provides that The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s 1 Tenant v Graddon [2021] NZRTT 4299640 name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
As the Applicant has not been successful in their claim, name suppression is not granted to the Applicant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5360081 — Rent arrears at 24A Bell Road, Waiwhetu, Lower Hutt 5010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5360081 — Rent arrears at 24A Bell Road, Waiwhetu, Lower Hutt 5010

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