What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5362923 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear these applications.

How much money was awarded in case 5362923?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5362923?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5362923?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12897251-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5362923 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear these applications.

How much money was awarded in case 5362923?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5362923?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5362923?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12897251-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 3, Unit/Flat 32a, 32a Oliver St, Point Chevalier, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5362923 — Exemplary damages

Order

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear these applications.
The applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Walker attended the hearing by phone. Ms Schierle did not attend. Her lawyer requested approval to represent her as she is currently not in New Zealand. The Tribunal declined to approve legal representation in this case as the statutory criteria were not met. Both I and another adjudicator issued directions about that.
When I declined the request for legal representation, I outlined the options available to Ms Schierle, including the opportunity to apply for an adjournment if she intended returning to New Zealand in the near future. She did not take up any of the options I outlined. The applications
Ms Walker has applied for compensation ($300.00) for the cost of replacing Ms Schierle as a flatmate. Ms Schierle has applied for compensation for various alleged breaches by the landlord ($3,000.00) and exemplary damages for the non-lodgement of the bond ($1,500.00).
The hearing today was confined to the issue of jurisdiction: was the arrangement between the parties a residential tenancy that falls under the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), or was it an excluded tenancy? Background
The Te Ara Reinga Toro Rangi Trust owns the property at 32a Oliver Street, Point Chevalier, Auckland. Ms Walker is the sole trustee. She effectively owns the property.
The premises comprise a self-contained flat downstairs rented to a tenant as residential premises. That tenancy is not relevant to these applications.
Ms Walker lives upstairs. There are 4 bedrooms. She rents rooms to flatmates. They all share the facilities. One room has its own ensuite bathroom. The other bathroom is used by the female flatmates. The advertisement for the room specified that ‘You will share the bathroom with the landlord and one other flatmate’.
Everyone shares the kitchen and living room facilities and the deck. They all contribute to the power and water charges over a set amount that Ms Walker agreed to pay.
The parties signed a flatmate agreement setting out the terms of the arrangement between them on 17 May 2025. They also signed a separate, comprehensive, list of flat rules. It was noted in the rules that ‘As per the Residential Tenancies Act all bond will be deposited with the Bond Centre’.
The arrangement did not work out. It seems that Ms Schierle had concerns for her safety. I need not record the details here. Ms Schierle moved out. She then lodged her application. The landlord cross-applied. Relevant law
Section 5 RTA is headed ‘Act excluded in certain cases’. Section 5(1)(n) excludes a tenancy: 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 Discussion
As can be seen, the RTA does not apply to all tenancies; some are excluded.
Here, the evidence establishes that the premises (the upstairs area of the house) were used principally as a place of residence by the landlord or owner – Ms Walker as the sole trustee of the Trust that owns the property.
The fact that she is a trustee does not exclude her from using the premises principally as her place of residence (unlike, for example, a company, which could not rely on the exclusion). Ms Walker is the owner of the premises albeit as the trustee of the Trust.
The premises are not a boarding house; they do not meet the statutory definition of a boarding house.
Ms Walker advertised for a flatmate to share the premises with her and 2 other flatmates.
In Musson v Dobrisek and others 1 the Court provided this guidance: By flatmates I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, all occupants are on [the] same equal footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens.
Tribunal decision on this issue include Nie v Zhao 2 ; Bailes v Nalini 3 ; and Zhang v Gao 4 . These decisions highlight factors such as: • The extent of any sharing of living facilities (such as cooking, bathroom, sitting room, laundry) • The extent of any free and unimpeded access by the tenant to premises occupied mainly by the landlord 1 CIV 2006 032 36 2 [2020] NZTT Nort Shore 4277894 3 [2020] NZTT 4261603; 4268721 4 [NZTT] North Shore 4298016; 4297675 • The nature of the tenant’s area and whether it is fully or partly self-contained and whether it is exclusive.
The onus of proof in this case rests with Ms Walker since it is she who relies on the statutory exclusion.
I find that the arrangement between these parties was not a landlord/tenant relationship. It was not a residential tenancy that falls under the previsions of the RTA because the premises are used by Ms Walker principally as her place of residence. The section 5(1)(n) RTA exclusion applies.
Ms Walker advertised for a flatmate to share the premises with her and 2 other flatmates. Apart from their separate bedrooms, the flatmates shared facilities and expenses that exceeded the amount Ms Walker agreed to fund. They all had free and unimpeded access to the premises used by Ms Walker principally as her place of residence. Ms Schierle’s area was not fully or partly self- contained nor was it exclusive.
That the flatmate rules noted that the bond would be deposited with the Bond Centre does not create a tenancy. That said, if there is a bond lodged with the Bond Centre, Ms Walker should agree to its release to Ms Schierle. Result
The tenancy is an excluded tenancy under section 5(1)(n) RTA. The relationship between the parties was one of flatmates, not landlord and tenant.
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction.
The applications are dismissed.

Order

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear these applications.
The applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Walker attended the hearing by phone. Ms Schierle did not attend. Her lawyer requested approval to represent her as she is currently not in New Zealand. The Tribunal declined to approve legal representation in this case as the statutory criteria were not met. Both I and another adjudicator issued directions about that.
When I declined the request for legal representation, I outlined the options available to Ms Schierle, including the opportunity to apply for an adjournment if she intended returning to New Zealand in the near future. She did not take up any of the options I outlined. The applications
Ms Walker has applied for compensation ($300.00) for the cost of replacing Ms Schierle as a flatmate. Ms Schierle has applied for compensation for various alleged breaches by the landlord ($3,000.00) and exemplary damages for the non-lodgement of the bond ($1,500.00).
The hearing today was confined to the issue of jurisdiction: was the arrangement between the parties a residential tenancy that falls under the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), or was it an excluded tenancy? Background
The Te Ara Reinga Toro Rangi Trust owns the property at 32a Oliver Street, Point Chevalier, Auckland. Ms Walker is the sole trustee. She effectively owns the property.
The premises comprise a self-contained flat downstairs rented to a tenant as residential premises. That tenancy is not relevant to these applications.
Ms Walker lives upstairs. There are 4 bedrooms. She rents rooms to flatmates. They all share the facilities. One room has its own ensuite bathroom. The other bathroom is used by the female flatmates. The advertisement for the room specified that ‘You will share the bathroom with the landlord and one other flatmate’.
Everyone shares the kitchen and living room facilities and the deck. They all contribute to the power and water charges over a set amount that Ms Walker agreed to pay.
The parties signed a flatmate agreement setting out the terms of the arrangement between them on 17 May 2025. They also signed a separate, comprehensive, list of flat rules. It was noted in the rules that ‘As per the Residential Tenancies Act all bond will be deposited with the Bond Centre’.
The arrangement did not work out. It seems that Ms Schierle had concerns for her safety. I need not record the details here. Ms Schierle moved out. She then lodged her application. The landlord cross-applied. Relevant law
Section 5 RTA is headed ‘Act excluded in certain cases’. Section 5(1)(n) excludes a tenancy: 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 Discussion
As can be seen, the RTA does not apply to all tenancies; some are excluded.
Here, the evidence establishes that the premises (the upstairs area of the house) were used principally as a place of residence by the landlord or owner – Ms Walker as the sole trustee of the Trust that owns the property.
The fact that she is a trustee does not exclude her from using the premises principally as her place of residence (unlike, for example, a company, which could not rely on the exclusion). Ms Walker is the owner of the premises albeit as the trustee of the Trust.
The premises are not a boarding house; they do not meet the statutory definition of a boarding house.
Ms Walker advertised for a flatmate to share the premises with her and 2 other flatmates.
In Musson v Dobrisek and others 1 the Court provided this guidance: By flatmates I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, all occupants are on [the] same equal footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens.
Tribunal decision on this issue include Nie v Zhao 2 ; Bailes v Nalini 3 ; and Zhang v Gao 4 . These decisions highlight factors such as: • The extent of any sharing of living facilities (such as cooking, bathroom, sitting room, laundry) • The extent of any free and unimpeded access by the tenant to premises occupied mainly by the landlord 1 CIV 2006 032 36 2 [2020] NZTT Nort Shore 4277894 3 [2020] NZTT 4261603; 4268721 4 [NZTT] North Shore 4298016; 4297675 • The nature of the tenant’s area and whether it is fully or partly self-contained and whether it is exclusive.
The onus of proof in this case rests with Ms Walker since it is she who relies on the statutory exclusion.
I find that the arrangement between these parties was not a landlord/tenant relationship. It was not a residential tenancy that falls under the previsions of the RTA because the premises are used by Ms Walker principally as her place of residence. The section 5(1)(n) RTA exclusion applies.
Ms Walker advertised for a flatmate to share the premises with her and 2 other flatmates. Apart from their separate bedrooms, the flatmates shared facilities and expenses that exceeded the amount Ms Walker agreed to fund. They all had free and unimpeded access to the premises used by Ms Walker principally as her place of residence. Ms Schierle’s area was not fully or partly self- contained nor was it exclusive.
That the flatmate rules noted that the bond would be deposited with the Bond Centre does not create a tenancy. That said, if there is a bond lodged with the Bond Centre, Ms Walker should agree to its release to Ms Schierle. Result
The tenancy is an excluded tenancy under section 5(1)(n) RTA. The relationship between the parties was one of flatmates, not landlord and tenant.
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction.
The applications are dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5362923 — Exemplary damages at Room 3, Unit/Flat 32a, 32a Oliver St, Point Chevalier,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5362923 — Exemplary damages at Room 3, Unit/Flat 32a, 32a Oliver St, Point Chevalier,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions