How much money was awarded in case 5375366?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5375366?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5375366?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13009459-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5375366?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5375366?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5375366?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13009459-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5375366 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5375366 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address.
By way of declaration, the tenancy is an excluded tenancy under section 5(1)(n) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Tribunal accordingly has no jurisdiction to determine the dispute.
The application is struck out.

Reasons

[The landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] both attended the teleconference hearing.
Prior to the hearing, I had informed the parties that in reviewing the application documents an issue had arisen as to whether there was a landlord/tenant relationship pursuant to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and so the issue of jurisdiction would be discussed at the start of the hearing, and would then be determined.
The applicant, [The landlord/s], is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Background
These parties were parties to an earlier application 5281642, where the Tribunal made an order dated 20 August 2025 for refund of a bond to the tenant, in the absence of an application for the bond from the landlord. A subsequent rehearing application made by [The landlord/s] in relation to that order was dismissed in an order dated 31 October 2025. There was not a determination as to jurisdiction by the Tribunal at that time on the evidence provided then.
[The landlord/s] filed a separate application for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. [The landlord/s]’s application documents included copies of House-Sharing Agreements with ‘flatmates’.
The parties provided evidence of discussions and negotiations for [The tenant/s] to take a room at [The landlord/s]’s property to live as a ‘flatmate’. The parties differ in their evidence as to whether there was a contract agreed between them and so whether there was a tenancy. [The landlord/s] claims there was a verbal agreement between them. [The tenant/s] did not move into the property ultimately and claims there was no tenancy. [The landlord/s] claims for loss she said she suffered as a result of the tenancy not proceeding further.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims?

Generally speaking, the RTA applies to every tenancy for residential purposes, except as specifically provided. See section 4 RTA.
Section 5 of the RTA specifies the situations in which the application of the RTA is excluded.
Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides that the RTA shall 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.
Further, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine disputes between parties other than those in a landlord/tenant relationship or involving a guarantor for the tenant, where appropriate. See section 77 RTA.
[The landlord/s] stated that she owns the property that is the subject of the tenancy, and she rents out some of the rooms to ‘flatmates’. She provided copies of a couple of “House-Sharing Agreements”, involving other flatmates at the property, where [The landlord/s] is listed as the ‘head tenant’ on these agreements. [The landlord/s] confirmed that [The tenant/s] would have signed a House-Sharing Agreements with her, on the same terms as the copies of those agreements provided, had his tenancy proceeded further.
The House-Sharing Agreement examples provided, which [The tenant/s] also would have signed if the tenancy had proceeded further, included a clause indicating that in the event of any dispute, the dispute would be determined by the Disputes Tribunal.
When asked if there was any person living at the property with whom she has a legal tenancy agreement, [The landlord/s] confirmed there was no tenancy agreement with any of the occupants at the property and that this is deliberate on her part, as she does not wish there to be a legal tenant as such. [The landlord/s] explained that she lived at the property until around 12 months ago and since then she has tried to keep a room available in the property for her family to stay in when they visit [City]. She said she does not want to have any formal or legal tenancy agreement in place as otherwise she would not be able to host her family to stay in a room at the property and the property would be tied up legally by a formal tenancy. She said the flatmate situation allows her to retain flexibility over her own property and having her family to stay, when it can occur. She clarified that, whilst she tries to retain a bedroom at the property for her family to stay in, she has also rented out that room for money to others. She confirmed one of her cousins had lived in a bedroom at the property for around 5 weeks over the last year, since she moved out.
[The landlord/s] said that, whilst she lives elsewhere currently, her son is turning 17 and she can “absolutely” see that she will want to move back into the property when her son goes to college soon. In the meantime, she said she wants the flexibility to be able to come and go, with her family members able to stay at the property whenever possible, and to deal with the property on her own terms.
When I read out section 5(1)(n) of the RTA to [The landlord/s], and asked if it was a fair representation to say that she retained the property as a principal residence for herself and her family to live and stay in where possible and avoided having a formal tenancy agreement with anyone so she could deal with the property more flexibly for she and her family, she agreed it was.
[The landlord/s] confirmed there are 4 bedrooms in the property and, said at some point she would likely keep 2 bedrooms at the property for she and other family members. She said she is more easily able to do that in the current ‘flatmate’ situation.
[The landlord/s] indicated that all the flatmate occupants share the facilities at the property, other than an ensuite for the master bedroom, and the electricity and internet bills are included in the weekly rent, except when any occupant uses an excess of power or internet on an ongoing basis, in which case [The landlord/s] they would be asked to contribute more for this with an increased rent.
[The landlord/s] further said the flatmates all share the cleaning and other jobs around the property and have a schedule for this.
[The landlord/s] said she raised the issue of being flatmates with the adjudicator in the hearing of the earlier tenant application 5281642, but there was no jurisdiction discussion or determination then.
[The tenant/s] said that, as he did not obtain possession of the room at the property that was the subject of the parties’ discussions, nor was he given any keys to the room, he believed the Tribunal has no jurisdiction as there was essentially no tenancy.
[The tenant/s] confirmed he understood he was going to be at the property only as a flatmate. He said he had been looking for a formal tenancy agreement for visa purposes but that he then understood this was only a flatmate situation. He said it did not get to the stage of any written agreement being signed. [The landlord/s] said there had been a verbal agreement between them about the terms of their contract.
[The landlord/s] confirmed that the House-Sharing Agreement that [The tenant/s] would have signed if the tenancy with him had proceeded further, provided for the Disputes Tribunal to determine any disputes. She said that, if push came to shove, she would have to approach the Disputes Tribunal, of course.
[The landlord/s] confirmed, as did [The tenant/s], that the $440.00 bond had been returned to [The tenant/s].
I find the evidence provided shows this is not a boarding house situation, as [The landlord/s] said there are about 4-5 people living at the property, which includes a couple in a double bedroom, and there are only 4 bedrooms.
I find that the evidence of [The landlord/s] that she intentionally avoids having any formal tenancy agreement and only has flatmates because she wishes to have the flexibility to have family members come to stay in a room at the property when they visit [City], and wants to have the ability to return to the property herself at some point in the near future, when she will likely increase the bedrooms retained for she and her family from 1 bedroom to 2 bedrooms, and her confirmation that she keeps the property principally as a place of residence for she and her family, with only flatmates coming and going so that she can either increase or decrease the number of bedrooms available at the property for she and her family over time, and [The tenant/s]’s confirmation that he understood he would only be a flatmate and would not have a tenancy agreement, shows it is more likely than not that the premises continue to be used, and was used at the time of the negotiations about the tenancy between the parties, principally as a place of residence for the owner of the premises and her family.
I do not make a specific finding as to whether the parties would have been considered ‘flatmates’, as such, based on the evidence. However, I find the tenancy is excluded from the Tribunal’s jurisdiction pursuant to section 5(1)(n) of the RTA in any event.
As the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the claims, the application is struck out.
The applicant can obtain appropriate advice as to the appropriate forum to address the dispute.
Given my finding that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with [The landlord/s]’s claims, and given the issue of jurisdiction was not discussed or determined in the tenant’s earlier application 5281642, I note the parties can file a rehearing application for application 5281642, should they choose to do so. However, I also note the parties’ evidence that the $440.00 bond has already been reimbursed to [The tenant/s], and so that matter has essentially been dealt with. Suppression
Both parties requested name suppression. As I find the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim and strike out the claims, I find there is no public interest in publishing the parties’ names. Therefore, I order that the parties’ names and identifying details are not to be published. See section 95A(4) RTA.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address.

By way of declaration, the tenancy is an excluded tenancy under section 5(1)(n) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Tribunal accordingly has no jurisdiction to determine the dispute.

The application is struck out.

Reasons

[The landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] both attended the teleconference hearing.

Prior to the hearing, I had informed the parties that in reviewing the application documents an issue had arisen as to whether there was a landlord/tenant relationship pursuant to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and so the issue of jurisdiction would be discussed at the start of the hearing, and would then be determined.

The applicant, [The landlord/s], is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Background

These parties were parties to an earlier application 5281642, where the Tribunal made an order dated 20 August 2025 for refund of a bond to the tenant, in the absence of an application for the bond from the landlord. A subsequent rehearing application made by [The landlord/s] in relation to that order was dismissed in an order dated 31 October 2025. There was not a determination as to jurisdiction by the Tribunal at that time on the evidence provided then.

[The landlord/s] filed a separate application for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. [The landlord/s]’s application documents included copies of House-Sharing Agreements with ‘flatmates’.

The parties provided evidence of discussions and negotiations for [The tenant/s] to take a room at [The landlord/s]’s property to live as a ‘flatmate’. The parties differ in their evidence as to whether there was a contract agreed between them and so whether there was a tenancy. [The landlord/s] claims there was a verbal agreement between them. [The tenant/s] did not move into the property ultimately and claims there was no tenancy. [The landlord/s] claims for loss she said she suffered as a result of the tenancy not proceeding further.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims?

Generally speaking, the RTA applies to every tenancy for residential purposes, except as specifically provided. See section 4 RTA.

Section 5 of the RTA specifies the situations in which the application of the RTA is excluded.

Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides that the RTA shall 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.

Further, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine disputes between parties other than those in a landlord/tenant relationship or involving a guarantor for the tenant, where appropriate. See section 77 RTA.

[The landlord/s] stated that she owns the property that is the subject of the tenancy, and she rents out some of the rooms to ‘flatmates’. She provided copies of a couple of “House-Sharing Agreements”, involving other flatmates at the property, where [The landlord/s] is listed as the ‘head tenant’ on these agreements. [The landlord/s] confirmed that [The tenant/s] would have signed a House-Sharing Agreements with her, on the same terms as the copies of those agreements provided, had his tenancy proceeded further.

The House-Sharing Agreement examples provided, which [The tenant/s] also would have signed if the tenancy had proceeded further, included a clause indicating that in the event of any dispute, the dispute would be determined by the Disputes Tribunal.

When asked if there was any person living at the property with whom she has a legal tenancy agreement, [The landlord/s] confirmed there was no tenancy agreement with any of the occupants at the property and that this is deliberate on her part, as she does not wish there to be a legal tenant as such. [The landlord/s] explained that she lived at the property until around 12 months ago and since then she has tried to keep a room available in the property for her family to stay in when they visit [City]. She said she does not want to have any formal or legal tenancy agreement in place as otherwise she would not be able to host her family to stay in a room at the property and the property would be tied up legally by a formal tenancy. She said the flatmate situation allows her to retain flexibility over her own property and having her family to stay, when it can occur. She clarified that, whilst she tries to retain a bedroom at the property for her family to stay in, she has also rented out that room for money to others. She confirmed one of her cousins had lived in a bedroom at the property for around 5 weeks over the last year, since she moved out.

[The landlord/s] said that, whilst she lives elsewhere currently, her son is turning 17 and she can “absolutely” see that she will want to move back into the property when her son goes to college soon. In the meantime, she said she wants the flexibility to be able to come and go, with her family members able to stay at the property whenever possible, and to deal with the property on her own terms.

When I read out section 5(1)(n) of the RTA to [The landlord/s], and asked if it was a fair representation to say that she retained the property as a principal residence for herself and her family to live and stay in where possible and avoided having a formal tenancy agreement with anyone so she could deal with the property more flexibly for she and her family, she agreed it was.

[The landlord/s] confirmed there are 4 bedrooms in the property and, said at some point she would likely keep 2 bedrooms at the property for she and other family members. She said she is more easily able to do that in the current ‘flatmate’ situation.

[The landlord/s] indicated that all the flatmate occupants share the facilities at the property, other than an ensuite for the master bedroom, and the electricity and internet bills are included in the weekly rent, except when any occupant uses an excess of power or internet on an ongoing basis, in which case [The landlord/s] they would be asked to contribute more for this with an increased rent.

[The landlord/s] further said the flatmates all share the cleaning and other jobs around the property and have a schedule for this.

[The landlord/s] said she raised the issue of being flatmates with the adjudicator in the hearing of the earlier tenant application 5281642, but there was no jurisdiction discussion or determination then.

[The tenant/s] said that, as he did not obtain possession of the room at the property that was the subject of the parties’ discussions, nor was he given any keys to the room, he believed the Tribunal has no jurisdiction as there was essentially no tenancy.

[The tenant/s] confirmed he understood he was going to be at the property only as a flatmate. He said he had been looking for a formal tenancy agreement for visa purposes but that he then understood this was only a flatmate situation. He said it did not get to the stage of any written agreement being signed. [The landlord/s] said there had been a verbal agreement between them about the terms of their contract.

[The landlord/s] confirmed that the House-Sharing Agreement that [The tenant/s] would have signed if the tenancy with him had proceeded further, provided for the Disputes Tribunal to determine any disputes. She said that, if push came to shove, she would have to approach the Disputes Tribunal, of course.

[The landlord/s] confirmed, as did [The tenant/s], that the $440.00 bond had been returned to [The tenant/s].

I find the evidence provided shows this is not a boarding house situation, as [The landlord/s] said there are about 4-5 people living at the property, which includes a couple in a double bedroom, and there are only 4 bedrooms.

I find that the evidence of [The landlord/s] that she intentionally avoids having any formal tenancy agreement and only has flatmates because she wishes to have the flexibility to have family members come to stay in a room at the property when they visit [City], and wants to have the ability to return to the property herself at some point in the near future, when she will likely increase the bedrooms retained for she and her family from 1 bedroom to 2 bedrooms, and her confirmation that she keeps the property principally as a place of residence for she and her family, with only flatmates coming and going so that she can either increase or decrease the number of bedrooms available at the property for she and her family over time, and [The tenant/s]’s confirmation that he understood he would only be a flatmate and would not have a tenancy agreement, shows it is more likely than not that the premises continue to be used, and was used at the time of the negotiations about the tenancy between the parties, principally as a place of residence for the owner of the premises and her family.

I do not make a specific finding as to whether the parties would have been considered ‘flatmates’, as such, based on the evidence. However, I find the tenancy is excluded from the Tribunal’s jurisdiction pursuant to section 5(1)(n) of the RTA in any event.

As the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the claims, the application is struck out.

The applicant can obtain appropriate advice as to the appropriate forum to address the dispute.

Given my finding that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with [The landlord/s]’s claims, and given the issue of jurisdiction was not discussed or determined in the tenant’s earlier application 5281642, I note the parties can file a rehearing application for application 5281642, should they choose to do so. However, I also note the parties’ evidence that the $440.00 bond has already been reimbursed to [The tenant/s], and so that matter has essentially been dealt with. Suppression

Both parties requested name suppression. As I find the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim and strike out the claims, I find there is no public interest in publishing the parties’ names. Therefore, I order that the parties’ names and identifying details are not to be published. See section 95A(4) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5375366 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5375366 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions