What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5395302 about?

The tribunal order states: By way of declaration, the arrangement between the parties is not a residential

How much money was awarded in case 5395302?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5395302?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5395302?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13450896-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5395302 about?

The tribunal order states: By way of declaration, the arrangement between the parties is not a residential

How much money was awarded in case 5395302?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5395302?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5395302?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13450896-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

55 Galbraith Street, Waihi, Waihi 3610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5395302 — Harassment

Order

By way of declaration, the arrangement between the parties is not a residential tenancy and is therefore not subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear and consider the application. The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Li (applicant) attended the hearing by telephone. Miss McAlister (respondent) did not attend the hearing.
The hearing continued in Miss McAlister’s absence as I am satisfied that she had been sent the notice of hearing for today’s hearing and had previously received Mr Li’s application.
The Tribunal was assisted by a mandarin interpreter during the hearing.
Mr Li lived at 55 Galbraith Street, Waihi from 22 August 2025 to 4 November 2025. The house has 3 bedrooms, 1 living area, 1 bathroom and a garage. Mr Li paid $200 a week, which included wifi and power. He paid $400.00 in bond.
Mr Li has filed a claim for refund of his bond and compensation for unlawful eviction, ongoing harassment from Miss McAlister, unlawful rent increases, emotional distress and inconvenience, and claims for water being charged without invoices being provided.
However, there is a preliminary issue as to whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s claim which needs to be resolved before the substantive claim made by the applicant can be heard. Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental and must be decided before the Tribunal can determine any matters claimed.

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute between a landlord and a tenant that relates to a residential tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies 1 . The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine disputes between parties other than those in a landlord and tenant relationship.
Section 2 RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the tenancy agreement. A tenant is someone who is granted a tenancy by the landlord. A tenant is someone who rents the premises directly from the landlord and who usually has a written tenancy agreement which records they are a tenant.
Section 5 RTA details exclusions to the RTA when a tenant/landlord relationship exists. Section 5(1)(n) specifically excludes arrangements where the premises are being used by the landlord, or a member of the landlord or owner’s family, principally as their place of residence.
In the District Court decision of Musson v Dobrisek, Catley and Low 2 , Judge Broadmore stated, while excluding flatmate relationships from being under the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal, that “...the use of the word “flatmate” does not in itself define the nature of the legal relationship between a flatmate and any landlord”....By "flatmates" I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, 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."
The key issue here is whether the applicant is a tenant and the respondent is a landlord, or whether the applicant was a flatmate of the respondent’s.
Mr Li said he was a work colleague of Miss McAlister’s and she asked him if he would like to live at the property. Mr Li initially understood that Miss McAlister owned the property, but learned after he moved in that her aunty was the owner. To start with Mr Li said all communications with Miss McAlister about 1 See section 77, RTA 2 CIV 2006-032-36 5 May 2006 his living at the property were oral, but as English is his second language, they changed to communicating by text, with the messages being translated.
Mr Li confirmed that there was no written agreement recording the terms of the arrangement other than what was in the text messages.
Mr Li said he had use of one of the bedrooms and shared use of the kitchen, bathroom and laundry. He was not allowed to use the garage, as only Miss McAlister parked in and used the garage. Mr Li said he was not sure how tenancies worked in New Zealand but thought that he was a tenant.
As stated above, Miss McAlister did not attend the hearing and did not provide any written statement to the Tribunal. An email from Miss McAlister’s aunt in support of Miss McAlister’s application for adjournment relating to the previous hearing, confirms that her aunt is the owner and that Miss McAlister was her tenant.
Having considered Mr Li’s submissions and evidence I find the arrangement between the applicant and the respondent is one of a flatmate arrangement. The applicant paid rent to the respondent and his share of the services/bills. The respondent did not pay the bond to the Bond Centre. In reviewing the text messages presented I am satisfied there is no evidence of the respondent using the term ‘tenancy’ or making any reference to the arrangement being a residential tenancy under the RTA.
I find there is no evidence that the parties intended the arrangement to be a residential tenancy subject to the RTA. The evidence leads me to the conclusion that they did not at any stage in discussing the terms on which Mr Li would live at the property, consider the arrangement to be a tenancy under the RTA or intend to be bound by the obligations and responsibilities the RTA sets out for landlords and tenants.
In any event, had that been the case, I would have found that the arrangement was excluded under the provisions in section 5(1)(n). That is, the property is the principal place of residence of Ms McAlister and as she is a member of the landlord’s family therefore the RTA does not apply.
The Tenancy Tribunal therefore does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter and Mr Li’s claim is dismissed.
As explained at the hearing disputes arising from flatmate relationship’s such as this are able to be determined in the Disputes Tribunal.

Order

By way of declaration, the arrangement between the parties is not a residential tenancy and is therefore not subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear and consider the application. The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Li (applicant) attended the hearing by telephone. Miss McAlister (respondent) did not attend the hearing.
The hearing continued in Miss McAlister’s absence as I am satisfied that she had been sent the notice of hearing for today’s hearing and had previously received Mr Li’s application.
The Tribunal was assisted by a mandarin interpreter during the hearing.
Mr Li lived at 55 Galbraith Street, Waihi from 22 August 2025 to 4 November 2025. The house has 3 bedrooms, 1 living area, 1 bathroom and a garage. Mr Li paid $200 a week, which included wifi and power. He paid $400.00 in bond.
Mr Li has filed a claim for refund of his bond and compensation for unlawful eviction, ongoing harassment from Miss McAlister, unlawful rent increases, emotional distress and inconvenience, and claims for water being charged without invoices being provided.
However, there is a preliminary issue as to whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s claim which needs to be resolved before the substantive claim made by the applicant can be heard. Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental and must be decided before the Tribunal can determine any matters claimed.

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute between a landlord and a tenant that relates to a residential tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies 1 . The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine disputes between parties other than those in a landlord and tenant relationship.
Section 2 RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the tenancy agreement. A tenant is someone who is granted a tenancy by the landlord. A tenant is someone who rents the premises directly from the landlord and who usually has a written tenancy agreement which records they are a tenant.
Section 5 RTA details exclusions to the RTA when a tenant/landlord relationship exists. Section 5(1)(n) specifically excludes arrangements where the premises are being used by the landlord, or a member of the landlord or owner’s family, principally as their place of residence.
In the District Court decision of Musson v Dobrisek, Catley and Low 2 , Judge Broadmore stated, while excluding flatmate relationships from being under the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal, that “...the use of the word “flatmate” does not in itself define the nature of the legal relationship between a flatmate and any landlord”....By "flatmates" I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, 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."
The key issue here is whether the applicant is a tenant and the respondent is a landlord, or whether the applicant was a flatmate of the respondent’s.
Mr Li said he was a work colleague of Miss McAlister’s and she asked him if he would like to live at the property. Mr Li initially understood that Miss McAlister owned the property, but learned after he moved in that her aunty was the owner. To start with Mr Li said all communications with Miss McAlister about 1 See section 77, RTA 2 CIV 2006-032-36 5 May 2006 his living at the property were oral, but as English is his second language, they changed to communicating by text, with the messages being translated.
Mr Li confirmed that there was no written agreement recording the terms of the arrangement other than what was in the text messages.
Mr Li said he had use of one of the bedrooms and shared use of the kitchen, bathroom and laundry. He was not allowed to use the garage, as only Miss McAlister parked in and used the garage. Mr Li said he was not sure how tenancies worked in New Zealand but thought that he was a tenant.
As stated above, Miss McAlister did not attend the hearing and did not provide any written statement to the Tribunal. An email from Miss McAlister’s aunt in support of Miss McAlister’s application for adjournment relating to the previous hearing, confirms that her aunt is the owner and that Miss McAlister was her tenant.
Having considered Mr Li’s submissions and evidence I find the arrangement between the applicant and the respondent is one of a flatmate arrangement. The applicant paid rent to the respondent and his share of the services/bills. The respondent did not pay the bond to the Bond Centre. In reviewing the text messages presented I am satisfied there is no evidence of the respondent using the term ‘tenancy’ or making any reference to the arrangement being a residential tenancy under the RTA.
I find there is no evidence that the parties intended the arrangement to be a residential tenancy subject to the RTA. The evidence leads me to the conclusion that they did not at any stage in discussing the terms on which Mr Li would live at the property, consider the arrangement to be a tenancy under the RTA or intend to be bound by the obligations and responsibilities the RTA sets out for landlords and tenants.
In any event, had that been the case, I would have found that the arrangement was excluded under the provisions in section 5(1)(n). That is, the property is the principal place of residence of Ms McAlister and as she is a member of the landlord’s family therefore the RTA does not apply.
The Tenancy Tribunal therefore does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter and Mr Li’s claim is dismissed.
As explained at the hearing disputes arising from flatmate relationship’s such as this are able to be determined in the Disputes Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5395302 — Harassment at 55 Galbraith Street, Waihi, Waihi 3610

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5395302 — Harassment at 55 Galbraith Street, Waihi, Waihi 3610

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.