What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5401568 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details are suppressed until the next hearing

How much money was awarded in case 5401568?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5401568?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5401568?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13472958-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5401568 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details are suppressed until the next hearing

How much money was awarded in case 5401568?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5401568?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5401568?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13472958-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5401568 — Cleanliness | TenantCheck

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5401568 — Cleanliness

Decided 20 Apr 2026 · Published 20 Apr 2026 · Application 5401568

Cleanliness
Exemplary damages
Harassment
Boarding House

Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5401568 — Cleanliness

Decided 20 Apr 2026 · Published 20 Apr 2026 · Application 5401568

Cleanliness
Exemplary damages
Harassment
Boarding House

Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Order

FOLLOWING PRELIMINARY HEARING

The parties’ names and identifying details are suppressed until the next hearing takes place.
The arrangement between the parties is a tenancy and is subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord is [Trustee Co] As Agent for [Res Co].
[Trustee Co] As Agent for [Res Co] is to pay the bond of $1,080.00 to the Bond Centre immediately.
The matter is adjourned. The next hearing of this matter shall be to determine the applicant’s substantive claims. It shall be scheduled via video conference before me for 420 minutes (9.30am to 4.30pm with an hour for lunch) on the next available date no earlier than 21 May 2026.
If the landlord wishes for any claims the landlord may have against the applicant to be heard at the next hearing, the landlord must lodge its claims with the Tribunal, pay the applicable fee and refer to this application number no later than 04 May 2026.
The applicant’s application for [Mr M (Jnr)] to be joined to the proceedings is dismissed.

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. The hearing took place on 27 March 2026 via video conference. The applicant attended the hearing. [Mr M (Jnr)] (see paragraph 10 below) attended the hearing for the Respondent.
For these proceedings, the Respondent is [Mr M (Jnr)], [Trustee Co] and [Res Co].
[Trustee Co] is a limited company registered with the New Zealand Companies Office. Its directors are [Mr M (Jnr)] and, his father, [Mr M (Snr]. To avoid confusion between [Mr M (Jnr)] and his father, I shall refer to [Mr M (Jnr)] and his father as [Mr M (Jnr)]
[Res Co] (“Res Co”) is also a limited company registered with the New Zealand Companies Office. Its sole shareholder is the Trustee Co and its directors are [Mr M (Jnr)] and [Mr M (Snr)]
The purpose of the hearing was to determine if the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s claims.
The applicant says that he was a tenant of Res Co and that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear his claims.
[Mr M (Jnr)] says that the arrangement between the parties does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. [Mr M (Jnr)] says that he had a licence from Res Co to occupy the premises, that he was the head flatmate and that the applicant was his flatmate.
If the tenancy is found to be a residential tenancy and either Trustee Co or Res Co is found to be the landlord, [Mr M (Jnr)] says that he is a family member of either Trustee Co or Res Co, that the premises was being used principally as his place of residence during the relevant time and the arrangement is an excluded tenancy under section 5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The issues for the Tribunal to determine are therefore: a. Was the arrangement between the applicant and the respondent (or one of them) a flatmate arrangement and, therefore, not subject to the RTA or was it a tenancy? b. If the arrangement was a tenancy: i. Who is the landlord? ii. Was the tenancy an excluded tenancy in accordance with section 5(n) of the RTA? c. If the tenancy is not an excluded tenancy: i. And [Mr M (Jnr)] is not the landlord, should [Mr M (Jnr)] be joined to the proceedings in his personal capacity? ii. Should the landlord be required to pay the bond that the applicant has paid to the respondent to the Bond Centre? A. RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that the party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On 10 September 1993, a Certificate of Title was issued for the premises recording the registered owner of the premises as Res Co.
On 20 February 2023, [Mr M (Jnr)] and Res Co entered into a licence arrangement (the “Licence”). The Licence provides that [Mr M (Jnr)] had a licence to occupy the premises and “... grant sub-licences or boarding arrangements to other occupants; and (d) collect rent and manage day-to-day operations”.
On 10 and 11 March 2025, the applicant and [Mr M (Jnr)] signed an agreement titled: “Flat/house – Room & shared spaces - rental/boarding agreement” (the “Rental/Boarding Agreement”). The Rental/Boarding Agreement states that the parties are: Landlord/Head Tenant detailsOccupant (Boarder/Tenant/Flatmate) details Name: [Trusee Co]. - represented [Mr M (Jnr)] as a trustee of the [ Trust] for [Res Co] Name: [Mr G}
The applicant resided at the premises from 11 March 2025 until 21 November 2025. During the time the Applicant resided at the premises, there were two other occupants who resided in the second and third bedrooms (the “Other Occupants”).
[Mr M (Jnr)] has provided a floor plan of the premises which shows: a. The premises consists of a house which has two entrances. One entrance is via the sunroom (the “Sunroom Entrance”) and the other is the main entrance to the premises (the “Main Entrance”); b. The premises has a hallway which is separated by an unlocked sliding door (the “Hallway”). On the Sunroom Entrance side of the sliding door in the Hallway there is: i. The master bedroom with an ensuite bathroom (the “Master Bedroom”); ii. Two further bedrooms; iii. The sunroom with the Sunroom Entrance; iv. An open plan kitchen and family room (the “Main Living Area”); v. A dining room; and vi. A shared bathroom. c. On the Main Entrance side of the of the sliding door in the Hallway, there is: i. The Main Entrance; ii. A living area with a mini bar (the “Second Living Area”). This area can be accessed by the Main Entrance and via the dining room; iii. A bedroom (the “Bedroom by the Main Entrance”); iv. A bathroom; v. The laundry. d. There is also a Granny flat. However, as this is a separate fully self-contained unit, I do not consider it to be relevant to these proceedings. C. WAS THE ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE RESPONDENT (OR ONE OF THEM) A FLATMATE ARRANGEMENT OR A

TENANCY?

As set out above, the main issue to determine is whether the arrangement between the parties is a tenancy. To do so, it is necessary to first consider if the applicant was a flatmate. If not, then unless the tenancy is an excluded tenancy under section 5 of the RTA and the parties have not contracted the excluded tenancy back into the RTA, 1 the RTA will apply.
Whether the applicant was a flatmate or a tenant is important because a flatmate does not have rights under the RTA. There is no definition of “flatmate” in the RTA.
Usually, a flatmate has a contractual relationship with the head tenant and it is the head tenant who has the contractual relationship with the landlord and is a tenant under the RTA.
In Musson v Dobrisek and Others DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006-032-36, 5 May 2006, the District Court provided the following guidance: By flatmates I understand a cooperative arrangement whereby, in a functional since, 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 Agreement refers to the parties as “Landlord/Head Tenant” and “Occupant (Boarder/Tenant/Flatmate)”. It makes no reference to the RTA and states that any disputes are to be determined by the Disputes Tribunal.
Even if the Agreement had unequivocally stated that the parties were not landlord and tenant and that the RTA did not apply, this would not be determinative. In Watson v Watson DC Christchurch CIV 2010-009-002030, 14 September 2010, Neave J said at para [9]: The labels that the parties give to the arrangement will not and cannot be determinative. It will always be necessary to examine the full facts of the situation and determine what the substance of the arrangement was.
Therefore, the Tribunal must determine the real nature of the arrangement between the parties. Previous decisions of the Tribunal on this issue 2 recognise the following factors as being relevant: a. The extent of any sharing of living facilities (such as cooking, bathroom, sitting room and laundry); 1 Section 8 of the RTA provides that where a tenancy is an excluded tenancy under section 5-7 of the RTA the parties can contract back into the RTA. 2 Nie v Zhao [2020] NZTT North Shore 4277894; 3 Bailes v Nalini [2020] NZTT 4261603; 4268721; Zhang v Gao [NZTT] North Shore 4298016; 4297675. b. The extent of any free and unimpeded access by the tenant to premises occupied mainly by the landlord; c. The nature of the tenant’s area and whether it is fully or partly self-contained and whether it is exclusive. The parties’ evidence:
In this matter, the applicant says that apart from use of the laundry and use by one of the Other Occupants of the bathroom beside the laundry, he and the Other Occupants occupied the living spaces on the Sunroom Entrance side of the sliding door in the Hallway and [Mr M (Jnr)] occupied the spaces on the Main Entrance side of the sliding door in the Hallway.
[Mr M (Jnr)] disagrees and says that the premises (excluding the granny flat) were shared by him, the applicant and the Other Occupants.
The parties agree that during the time the applicant resided at the premises: a. He paid rent directly to Res Co’s bank account; b. [Mr M (Jnr)] occupied the Bedroom by the Main Entrance; c. [Mr M (Jnr)] and one of the Other Occupants used the bathroom by the laundry; d. The applicant had exclusive use of the Master Bedroom including the ensuite bathroom; e. [Mr M (Jnr)] and the Applicant entered the premises via separate entrances, with the Applicant (and the other two occupants) using the Sunroom Entrance and [Mr M (Jnr)] using the Main Entrance; f.The Applicant had a key to the Sunroom Entrance. He did not have a key to the Main Entrance; g. The laundry was shared.
The applicant says: a. [Mr M (Jnr)] stayed at the premises no more than 4 nights per month and that he had his own separate area being: the Main Entrance; the Bedroom by the Main Entrance, the Second Living Area and the bathroom closest to the Main Entrance, which he shared with one of the Other Occupants; b. At the start of the arrangement, [Mr M (Jnr)] told him that he was not to use the Main Entrance to enter the premises; c. [Mr M (Jnr)] did not use the kitchen in the Main Living Area instead using the mini bar in the Second Living Area; d. That the only area the applicant used on the Main Entrance side of the sliding door in the Hallway was the laundry.
[Mr M (Jnr)] says: a. He stayed at the premises approximately 8 nights per month; b. When he was not at the premises, he was staying at his parents’ house in Auckland or traveling overseas; c. While he mainly prepared light meals for himself in the mini bar in the Second Living Area, he did use the main kitchen in the Main Living Area; d. The reason that the applicant did not see him using the kitchen in the Main Living Area was because the applicant was mostly in the Master Bedroom; e. He encouraged the applicant and the Other Occupants to use the Second Living Area but acknowledges that they did not do so for privacy reasons; f.He did not tell applicant not to use the Main Entrance; g. The key to Main Entrance was in a kitchen drawer which could be accessed by all residents, including the applicant; h. Had the applicant asked him for a key to the Main Entrance, he would have given it to him; i.The person who occupied the Master Bedroom before the applicant used the Main Entrance and he did not have an issue with this.
The Agreement also contains relevant evidence: a. The Agreement records the bank account number for the applicant to deposit the rent which is the bank account for Res Co. b. Clause 4 of the Agreement provides: The Occupant (boarder/tenant/flatmate) are to only occupy bedroom 3 (master bedroom) with ensuite and walk-wardrobe with access to dining/lounge area, kitchen, laundry & outdoor area. ... c. Clause 5 of the Agreement provides: A single house key and room key will be provided to each named occupant (boarder/tenant/flatmate) on the move-in date. Findings:
I find that it is more likely than not that [Mr M (Jnr)] did tell the applicant that he was not to use the Main Entrance. This is consistent with the applicant only being given a key to the Sunroom Entrance, and the Agreement which provides for only one key being given to the Applicant.
I further find that [Mr M (Jnr)] occupied a semi self-contained area consisting of the Main Entrance, the Second Living Area, the Bedroom by the Main Entrance and the bathroom closest with the Main Entrance which he shared with one of the Other Applicants. I prefer the applicant’s evidence on this point as it is consistent with the Agreement, which does not give the applicant any right to use those areas.
This means that the applicant and the Other Occupants had semi exclusive use of the premises on the Sunroom Entrance side of the sliding door in the Hallway;
I find that the arrangements between the parties are not indicative of a flatmate arrangement whereby [Mr M (Jnr)] was the head tenant and the applicant was a flatmate for the following reasons: a. The extent of sharing of living facilities (such as cooking, bathroom, sitting room and laundry) was limited. [Mr M (Jnr)] had his own semi self-contained area and only used the areas occupied by the applicant and the Other Occupants occasionally. The only area the applicant regularly shared with [Mr M (Jnr)] was the laundry; b. The area occupied by the applicant and the Other Occupants was, apart from the laundry and use of the bathroom by one of the Other Occupants, self- contained; c. Despite the sliding door in the Hallway being unlocked, the applicant did not have unimpeded access to the area occupied mainly by [Mr M (Jnr)]. The applicant did not have a key to the Main Entrance and had been told by [Mr M (Jnr)] not to use the Main Entrance. The only reason for the applicant to access this area was to use the laundry.
I find that the arrangement between the parties was a tenancy within the meaning of section 2 of the RTA.
The “premises” for the purpose of the tenancy was the Master Bedroom, the living areas on the Sunroom Entrance side of the sliding door in the Hallway and the shared laundry.
Section 4 of the RTA provides that the RTA “... applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided”. Therefore, unless the tenancy is an excluded tenancy under section 5(n) of the RTA (see below) the RTA applies. D. WHO IS THE LANDLORD?
Having found that arrangement is a tenancy, it is necessary to determine if it is an excluded tenancy under section 5(n) of the RTA. However, to do this, it is first necessary to determine who the landlord is. [Mr M (Jnr)] says that if the arrangement between the parties is found to be a residential tenancy, then he, not Res Co, is the landlord.
Section 2 of the RTA defines landlord as: ... landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement; and, where appropriate, includes— (a) a prospective landlord; and (b) a former landlord; and (c) a lawful successor in title of a landlord to the premises; and (d) the personal representative of a deceased landlord; and (e) an agent of a landlord
[Mr M (Jnr)] says that he is the landlord because he was the one who granted the tenancy to the applicant. Specifically, he says that it was him who interviewed the applicant to decide if he was suitable and who signed the tenancy agreement. [Mr M (Jnr)] further says that all the applicant’s dealings regarding the premises were with him.
[Mr M (Jnr)] further says that there is no agency agreement the Trustee Co and Res Co. He refers to the Trustee Co being the sole shareholder of Res Co. However, this does not prevent Trustee Co from acting as an agent for Res Co.
I find that the landlord is The Trustee Co As Agent for Res Co for the following reasons: a. The tenant paid rent to Res Co’s bank account: The Agreement records the Res Co bank account as the bank account to which the applicant was to pay rent. This reflects what happened in practice. It is difficult to see why, if [Mr M (Jnr)] was the landlord, the Applicant would pay rent to Res Co’s bank account. b. The description given of the landlord in the Agreement: While not determinative, the description of the landlord in the Agreement is a relevant factor to be considered as it shows the intention of the parties. The Agreement describes the “Landlord/Head Tenant” as “... [Trustee Co] Ltd. Represented [Mr M (Jnr)] as trustee of the [x Trust] for [Res Co]”. I consider the most logical interpretation of this to be that the landlord is Res Co; Trustee Co is acting for Res Co as an agent; and Trustee Co is represented by [Mr M (Jnr)]. While there is no evidence of a written agency agreement the Trustee Co and Res Co, the Agreement provides that the Trustee Co is acting for Res Co. I find that Trustee Co was acting as the Agent for Res Co. c. A representative/agent granted the tenancy to and dealt with the applicant: I accept [Mr M (Jnr)]’s evidence that it was he who: interviewed the applicant; who signed the Agreement; and who dealt with the applicant with all matters relating to the tenancy. However, I do not consider that [Mr M (Jnr)] was doing so in his personal capacity. He is a director of Res Co and the Trustee Co. I consider that when granting the tenancy, he was either doing so as a director of Res Co or as a director of Res Co’s agent, the Trustee Co. E. IS THE TENANCY AN EXCLUDED TENANCY UNDER SECTION 5(N) OF

THE RTA?

Section 5(n) of the RTA provides 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. Can a limited company or a Trust have family members for the purpose of section 5(n) of the RTA?
Section 2 of the RTA provides the following definition of member of the landlord’s or owner’s family: ... in relation to a landlord or an owner, means— any person who is or has been related to the landlord or owner— (i) by blood; or (ii) by or through marriage, a civil union, or a de facto relationship; or (iii) by adoption: (b) any other person who is a member of the landlord’s or owner’s whānau or other culturally recognised family group: (c )any child who is being, or is to be, cared for on a continuous basis by— (i) the landlord or owner; or (ii) the landlord’s or owner’s spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner
[Mr M (Jnr)] says that while the certificate of title records Res Co as the owner of the premises, the reality is that the premises is owned by the family trust.
The owner of land is the person / entity named on the Certificate of Title. [Mr M (Jnr)] says that the only reason Res Co is the owner on the Certificate of Title is because the Trust could not be the owner. A trust is not a legal entity and cannot own property. However, it is common practice for the registered owner of land to be recorded on the certificate of title as, for example, John Brown and Brown Trustees Limited as trustees of the Brown Family Trust. This indicates that while J Brown and the limited company are the legal owners of the land, they are holding it in a fiduciary capacity for the Brown Family Trust.
No doubt the trustees had a reason for recording Res Co as the owner of the premises without reference to it being held in a fiduciary capacity for MF Trust. A limited company is a separate legal entity and where a party records a limited company as the owner of the premises, they must accept both the benefits and the disadvantages of doing so.
There have been several decisions of this Tribunal where it has had to consider if a limited company can have family members. Most of them relate to section 51 of the RTA which provided that a landlord could terminate a tenancy where a family member of the landlord or the owner of the premises was moving into the premises. 3
In Balmoral Properties Ltd v Kelly TT Auckland TT69999, 15 September 1999, the landlord was a limited company and terminated the tenancy under section 51 of the RTA saying that one of the owners of the company required the premises for himself. The Tribunal found that the company could not personally occupy the premises, so the corporate landlord could not terminate the tenancy under that section.
In Compass Property Management Limited v The Applicant/s] [2024] NZTT 4775024, 4805239 the Tribunal said: I find that a corporate owner cannot rely on section 51(1)(a) of the Act. The owner must be able to give a different reason for termination under section 51(1) and (2). This may sound like a technical distinction, but it is difficult to see how a corporate owner can have family as that term is defined in section 2(1) of the Act. Having chosen to structure the tenancy through a corporate landlord, the 63-day notice provision under section 51(1)(a) was not available to the directors and shareholders of the owner.
Even if I had accepted that it was the Trust which was the owner of the premises, I consider it is unlikely the Trust could be said to have a family member. In Wheeler v Davis [2000] NZTT 290, the Tribunal considered a matter where a trustee was intending to occupy the premises. Adjudicator Large determined that a trust was analogous to a company, and stated: ... [t]here is no ability for a Trust to give notice pursuant to s51(1)(a) and seek possession because a Trust cannot occupy the property and neither can a Trust have members of a family which would allow s51 (1)(a) Notice to be given. A Trust is akin to a Company, a legal entity in its own right, and if Trustees were able to personally occupy premises pursuant to s51 (1)(a) after 42 days, there would be nothing to prevent Company Directors doing the same. Such an interpretation is not in accord in my view, with the clear intent of the legislature. 3 This was before the RTA was amended on 30 January 2026. Prior to this (broadly) a landlord had to have a reason to terminate a periodic tenancy. This section now provides that if an owner of a premises requires the premises as the principal place of residence for a minimum period for “the owner or a member of the owner’s family” ... a shorter notice period applies instead of the standard 90 days.
The Tribunal is not obliged to follow its own decisions. However, I agree with the rationale for the findings in the above cases on whether a company or a trust can have family members. I find that neither Res Co or the Trust could have family members for the purposes of section 5(n) of the RTA. Were the premises principally used as a place of residence by [Mr M (Jnr)]?
If I am wrong and Res Co could have family members and [Mr M (Jnr)] was a family member, I do not consider that the tenancy was an excluded tenancy under section 5(n) of the RTA. As set out above the test is whether the premises are used during the tenancy principally as a place of residency by the landlord or the owner, or a member of the landlord’s or the owner’s family.
In some situations, the application of this test is straightforward. Consider the following example. Mr and Mrs A own a 5-bedroom home which they live in with their three young children. They have a spare bedroom and decide to take in a lodger. Clearly their home is principally used as a place of residence for them and their family. If it was just Mrs A who owned and lived in the premises and she took in 4 “lodgers” for the other rooms, the situation would not be as clear. Mrs A would still live in the home for the same amount of time, however, it would be difficult to argue that the home was principally used as her place of residence.
In this matter, I have found that the premises was the Master Bedroom, the living areas on the Sunroom Entrance side of the sliding door in the Hallway and shared use laundry.
As I have found that the only use [Mr M (Jnr)] had of the premises was occasional use of the kitchen in the Main Living Area, the premises could not be said to be used principally as a place of residence for [Mr M (Jnr)].
If I am wrong, and the premises consisted of both areas on either side of the sliding door in the Hallway, I do not consider the premises could be found to be used as a principal place of residence for [Mr M (Jnr)]. This is because [Mr M (Jnr)] was only 1 of 4 residents.
Previous Orders of this Tribunal have held that the exclusion did not apply where the landlord the house was shared with several other residents and the landlord occupied only one bedroom; 4 where the son of the landlord shared the premises with several others; 5 and where the landlords’ and their son shared the premises with five other occupants. 6 4 Musson v Dobrisek DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006-032-36, 5 May 2006 at [33]-[46]. 5 Barnes v Kawhe [2014] NZTT Christchurch 1700 at [27]-[28]. 6 Green v Norrie [2015] NZTT Christchurch 498 at [14]. F. SHOULD [MR M (JNR)] BE JOINED TO THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE

SUBSTANTIVE HEARING?

The applicant has asked for [Mr M (Jnr)] to be joined personally for the purposes of the issues to be determined at the substantive hearing. I decline to do so.
As set out above, I do not find that [Mr M (Jnr)] was acting in his personal capacity but as the director of Res Co and/ or as the representative or director of the Trustee Co, the agent for Res Co. G. SHOULD THE BOND BE PAID TO THE BOND CENTRE?
The parties agree that the applicant paid a bond to the Res Co bank account. As the arrangement has been found to be a tenancy and subject to the RTA, the landlord, the Trustee Co as Agent for Res Co, is to transfer the bond to the Bond Centre immediately in accordance with section 19 of the RTA.
For the avoidance of doubt, immediately means as soon as possible and no later than 2 working days of the respondent’s receipt of this Order.
The bond shall remain at the Bond Centre until the substantive matter has been determined. H. INTERIM SUPPRESSION:
Both parties have requested suppression of their names. Broadly, apart from in limited circumstances, the Tribunal must issue suppression of a party’s name where the party is wholly or substantially successful.
Until the substantive hearing is complete, it is not possible to determine if either party has been wholly or substantially successful. The parties’ names and identifying details are suppressed until the Orders for the substantive claims have been issued. I. CASE MANAGEMENT:
The parties were aware that a possible outcome of the process was that the arrangement would be found to be a tenancy subject to the RTA. If so, a further hearing would be required to determine the substantive claims.
In order to simplify the process should a further hearing be required, a short Case Management Conference was held at the end of the hearing on 27 March 2026. The directions following that conference are set out below:

CASE MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS

The tenant’s claims:

The tenant claims that the landlord breached: a. Section 19(1) of the RTA by failing to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within 23 working days of receipt; b. Section 32(1) of the RTA by charging a fee under clause 17 of the Agreement which the tenant says was a penalty clause; c. Section 38 of the RTA by interfering with his right to quiet enjoyment of the premises and that this breach amounted to harassment within the meaning of section 38(3) of the RTA; d. Section 48 of the RTA by failing to give the correct period of notice in respect of: i. An inspection of his room and ensuite bathroom; ii. Allowing a cleaner to clean his bathroom. e. Section 137(1) of the RTA by making a contract/arrangement for the purpose of “ defeating, evading, or preventing the operation of any of the provisions of ...” the RTA. Specifically, the tenant said that the Agreement (see paragraph INSERT above) was a ‘sham’ contract designed to avoid the operation of the RTA.
The tenant seeks: a. Refund of the bond; b. Exemplary damages.
By 4pm on 04 May 2026, the tenant is to provide to the Tribunal by emailing the Tribunal at remote.tenancy@justice.govt.nz (and copying the landlord): a. Details of the matters he asserts amounted to a breach of his quiet enjoyment. This is to include: the date and time of the alleged incident (or approximate date and time); where the incident took place; what occurred; who was present. b. Specific amounts of compensation he is seeking for each breach and the type of compensation. I.e. is it exemplary damages or general compensation? How much is he seeking for breach of the RTA? The landlord’s claims:
The landlord said that if Tribunal finds it has jurisdiction to hear the matter, the landlord intends to lodge a claim for: a. Breach of the tenancy agreement. Specifically, [Mr M (Jnr)] says the tenancy was for a fixed term of 12 months and the tenant breached the agreement by ending the tenancy before the end of the fixed term and/or not giving the correct notice; b. Cleaning costs; c. Damage to the premises; and d. Deduction from the bond of any sums awarded.
If the landlord wishes for its claims to be considered at the next hearing, the landlord must by 04 May 2026 lodge its claim with the Tribunal and pay the corresponding fee. The landlord should reference this application (No. 5401568) in the application form.
The landlord is to ensure that a rent summary is provided with its application. The rent summary must cover the full period of the tenancy and be in the form set out on Tenancy Services website at: https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/rent-bond-and- bills/rent/receipts-and-records/. The only payments that should be included in the rent summary are rent. The rent summary is to include a running total of any arrears. An example is as follows: Number of weeks Rent due date Rent period from Rent period to Rent amount due Rent amount paid Rent paid date Arrears
01.202501.01.202507.01.20251000.00800.0001.01.2025200.00
01.202508.01.202514.01.20251000.00300.0008.01.2025900.00
15.01.202515.01.202521.01.20251000.000.001900.00
22.01.202522.01.202529.01.20251000.000.002900.00 Documents and other evidence:
If either party has any additional documents they wish to be considered at the next hearing, they are to provide them to the Tribunal no later than 10 working days before the next hearing.
Documents and other evidence are to be: a. Uploaded to the file; or b. Emailed to remote.tenancy@justice.govt.nz and copied to the other party; or c. Delivered to the public counter at the Hamilton District Court, 116 Anglesea Street Hamilton. Witnesses:
If a party wishes to call a witness, they should notify the Tribunal of the witnesses’ name(s) at least 5 working days prior to the hearing.
It is up to the party calling the witness to ensure a correct telephone number is provided to the Tribunal and the witness is available to take the call.
If either party has a witness who does not agree to attend the hearing, they can be summonsed. To do this the party will need to contact Tenancy Services no later than 5 working days before the hearing to make this request. The next hearing:
The next hearing is to be listed for a full day (9.30am to 4.30pm with one hour for lunch) by video conference. Tenancy Services will advise the parties in writing of the date and time for the next hearing.
If any party is unavailable to attend the hearing on that date, they are to notify the Tribunal by email (remote.tenancy@justice.govt.nz) without delay, providing the reason why they cannot attend (i.e. pre booked travel or medical appointment) and evidence (i.e. flight bookings or details of medical appointments).

Order

FOLLOWING PRELIMINARY HEARING

The parties’ names and identifying details are suppressed until the next hearing takes place.
The arrangement between the parties is a tenancy and is subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord is [Trustee Co] As Agent for [Res Co].
[Trustee Co] As Agent for [Res Co] is to pay the bond of $1,080.00 to the Bond Centre immediately.
The matter is adjourned. The next hearing of this matter shall be to determine the applicant’s substantive claims. It shall be scheduled via video conference before me for 420 minutes (9.30am to 4.30pm with an hour for lunch) on the next available date no earlier than 21 May 2026.
If the landlord wishes for any claims the landlord may have against the applicant to be heard at the next hearing, the landlord must lodge its claims with the Tribunal, pay the applicable fee and refer to this application number no later than 04 May 2026.
The applicant’s application for [Mr M (Jnr)] to be joined to the proceedings is dismissed.

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. The hearing took place on 27 March 2026 via video conference. The applicant attended the hearing. [Mr M (Jnr)] (see paragraph 10 below) attended the hearing for the Respondent.
For these proceedings, the Respondent is [Mr M (Jnr)], [Trustee Co] and [Res Co].
[Trustee Co] is a limited company registered with the New Zealand Companies Office. Its directors are [Mr M (Jnr)] and, his father, [Mr M (Snr]. To avoid confusion between [Mr M (Jnr)] and his father, I shall refer to [Mr M (Jnr)] and his father as [Mr M (Jnr)]
[Res Co] (“Res Co”) is also a limited company registered with the New Zealand Companies Office. Its sole shareholder is the Trustee Co and its directors are [Mr M (Jnr)] and [Mr M (Snr)]
The purpose of the hearing was to determine if the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s claims.
The applicant says that he was a tenant of Res Co and that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear his claims.
[Mr M (Jnr)] says that the arrangement between the parties does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. [Mr M (Jnr)] says that he had a licence from Res Co to occupy the premises, that he was the head flatmate and that the applicant was his flatmate.
If the tenancy is found to be a residential tenancy and either Trustee Co or Res Co is found to be the landlord, [Mr M (Jnr)] says that he is a family member of either Trustee Co or Res Co, that the premises was being used principally as his place of residence during the relevant time and the arrangement is an excluded tenancy under section 5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The issues for the Tribunal to determine are therefore: a. Was the arrangement between the applicant and the respondent (or one of them) a flatmate arrangement and, therefore, not subject to the RTA or was it a tenancy? b. If the arrangement was a tenancy: i. Who is the landlord? ii. Was the tenancy an excluded tenancy in accordance with section 5(n) of the RTA? c. If the tenancy is not an excluded tenancy: i. And [Mr M (Jnr)] is not the landlord, should [Mr M (Jnr)] be joined to the proceedings in his personal capacity? ii. Should the landlord be required to pay the bond that the applicant has paid to the respondent to the Bond Centre? A. RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that the party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On 10 September 1993, a Certificate of Title was issued for the premises recording the registered owner of the premises as Res Co.
On 20 February 2023, [Mr M (Jnr)] and Res Co entered into a licence arrangement (the “Licence”). The Licence provides that [Mr M (Jnr)] had a licence to occupy the premises and “... grant sub-licences or boarding arrangements to other occupants; and (d) collect rent and manage day-to-day operations”.
On 10 and 11 March 2025, the applicant and [Mr M (Jnr)] signed an agreement titled: “Flat/house – Room & shared spaces - rental/boarding agreement” (the “Rental/Boarding Agreement”). The Rental/Boarding Agreement states that the parties are: Landlord/Head Tenant detailsOccupant (Boarder/Tenant/Flatmate) details Name: [Trusee Co]. - represented [Mr M (Jnr)] as a trustee of the [ Trust] for [Res Co] Name: [Mr G}
The applicant resided at the premises from 11 March 2025 until 21 November 2025. During the time the Applicant resided at the premises, there were two other occupants who resided in the second and third bedrooms (the “Other Occupants”).
[Mr M (Jnr)] has provided a floor plan of the premises which shows: a. The premises consists of a house which has two entrances. One entrance is via the sunroom (the “Sunroom Entrance”) and the other is the main entrance to the premises (the “Main Entrance”); b. The premises has a hallway which is separated by an unlocked sliding door (the “Hallway”). On the Sunroom Entrance side of the sliding door in the Hallway there is: i. The master bedroom with an ensuite bathroom (the “Master Bedroom”); ii. Two further bedrooms; iii. The sunroom with the Sunroom Entrance; iv. An open plan kitchen and family room (the “Main Living Area”); v. A dining room; and vi. A shared bathroom. c. On the Main Entrance side of the of the sliding door in the Hallway, there is: i. The Main Entrance; ii. A living area with a mini bar (the “Second Living Area”). This area can be accessed by the Main Entrance and via the dining room; iii. A bedroom (the “Bedroom by the Main Entrance”); iv. A bathroom; v. The laundry. d. There is also a Granny flat. However, as this is a separate fully self-contained unit, I do not consider it to be relevant to these proceedings. C. WAS THE ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE RESPONDENT (OR ONE OF THEM) A FLATMATE ARRANGEMENT OR A

TENANCY?

As set out above, the main issue to determine is whether the arrangement between the parties is a tenancy. To do so, it is necessary to first consider if the applicant was a flatmate. If not, then unless the tenancy is an excluded tenancy under section 5 of the RTA and the parties have not contracted the excluded tenancy back into the RTA, 1 the RTA will apply.
Whether the applicant was a flatmate or a tenant is important because a flatmate does not have rights under the RTA. There is no definition of “flatmate” in the RTA.
Usually, a flatmate has a contractual relationship with the head tenant and it is the head tenant who has the contractual relationship with the landlord and is a tenant under the RTA.
In Musson v Dobrisek and Others DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006-032-36, 5 May 2006, the District Court provided the following guidance: By flatmates I understand a cooperative arrangement whereby, in a functional since, 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 Agreement refers to the parties as “Landlord/Head Tenant” and “Occupant (Boarder/Tenant/Flatmate)”. It makes no reference to the RTA and states that any disputes are to be determined by the Disputes Tribunal.
Even if the Agreement had unequivocally stated that the parties were not landlord and tenant and that the RTA did not apply, this would not be determinative. In Watson v Watson DC Christchurch CIV 2010-009-002030, 14 September 2010, Neave J said at para [9]: The labels that the parties give to the arrangement will not and cannot be determinative. It will always be necessary to examine the full facts of the situation and determine what the substance of the arrangement was.
Therefore, the Tribunal must determine the real nature of the arrangement between the parties. Previous decisions of the Tribunal on this issue 2 recognise the following factors as being relevant: a. The extent of any sharing of living facilities (such as cooking, bathroom, sitting room and laundry); 1 Section 8 of the RTA provides that where a tenancy is an excluded tenancy under section 5-7 of the RTA the parties can contract back into the RTA. 2 Nie v Zhao [2020] NZTT North Shore 4277894; 3 Bailes v Nalini [2020] NZTT 4261603; 4268721; Zhang v Gao [NZTT] North Shore 4298016; 4297675. b. The extent of any free and unimpeded access by the tenant to premises occupied mainly by the landlord; c. The nature of the tenant’s area and whether it is fully or partly self-contained and whether it is exclusive. The parties’ evidence:
In this matter, the applicant says that apart from use of the laundry and use by one of the Other Occupants of the bathroom beside the laundry, he and the Other Occupants occupied the living spaces on the Sunroom Entrance side of the sliding door in the Hallway and [Mr M (Jnr)] occupied the spaces on the Main Entrance side of the sliding door in the Hallway.
[Mr M (Jnr)] disagrees and says that the premises (excluding the granny flat) were shared by him, the applicant and the Other Occupants.
The parties agree that during the time the applicant resided at the premises: a. He paid rent directly to Res Co’s bank account; b. [Mr M (Jnr)] occupied the Bedroom by the Main Entrance; c. [Mr M (Jnr)] and one of the Other Occupants used the bathroom by the laundry; d. The applicant had exclusive use of the Master Bedroom including the ensuite bathroom; e. [Mr M (Jnr)] and the Applicant entered the premises via separate entrances, with the Applicant (and the other two occupants) using the Sunroom Entrance and [Mr M (Jnr)] using the Main Entrance; f.The Applicant had a key to the Sunroom Entrance. He did not have a key to the Main Entrance; g. The laundry was shared.
The applicant says: a. [Mr M (Jnr)] stayed at the premises no more than 4 nights per month and that he had his own separate area being: the Main Entrance; the Bedroom by the Main Entrance, the Second Living Area and the bathroom closest to the Main Entrance, which he shared with one of the Other Occupants; b. At the start of the arrangement, [Mr M (Jnr)] told him that he was not to use the Main Entrance to enter the premises; c. [Mr M (Jnr)] did not use the kitchen in the Main Living Area instead using the mini bar in the Second Living Area; d. That the only area the applicant used on the Main Entrance side of the sliding door in the Hallway was the laundry.
[Mr M (Jnr)] says: a. He stayed at the premises approximately 8 nights per month; b. When he was not at the premises, he was staying at his parents’ house in Auckland or traveling overseas; c. While he mainly prepared light meals for himself in the mini bar in the Second Living Area, he did use the main kitchen in the Main Living Area; d. The reason that the applicant did not see him using the kitchen in the Main Living Area was because the applicant was mostly in the Master Bedroom; e. He encouraged the applicant and the Other Occupants to use the Second Living Area but acknowledges that they did not do so for privacy reasons; f.He did not tell applicant not to use the Main Entrance; g. The key to Main Entrance was in a kitchen drawer which could be accessed by all residents, including the applicant; h. Had the applicant asked him for a key to the Main Entrance, he would have given it to him; i.The person who occupied the Master Bedroom before the applicant used the Main Entrance and he did not have an issue with this.
The Agreement also contains relevant evidence: a. The Agreement records the bank account number for the applicant to deposit the rent which is the bank account for Res Co. b. Clause 4 of the Agreement provides: The Occupant (boarder/tenant/flatmate) are to only occupy bedroom 3 (master bedroom) with ensuite and walk-wardrobe with access to dining/lounge area, kitchen, laundry & outdoor area. ... c. Clause 5 of the Agreement provides: A single house key and room key will be provided to each named occupant (boarder/tenant/flatmate) on the move-in date. Findings:
I find that it is more likely than not that [Mr M (Jnr)] did tell the applicant that he was not to use the Main Entrance. This is consistent with the applicant only being given a key to the Sunroom Entrance, and the Agreement which provides for only one key being given to the Applicant.
I further find that [Mr M (Jnr)] occupied a semi self-contained area consisting of the Main Entrance, the Second Living Area, the Bedroom by the Main Entrance and the bathroom closest with the Main Entrance which he shared with one of the Other Applicants. I prefer the applicant’s evidence on this point as it is consistent with the Agreement, which does not give the applicant any right to use those areas.
This means that the applicant and the Other Occupants had semi exclusive use of the premises on the Sunroom Entrance side of the sliding door in the Hallway;
I find that the arrangements between the parties are not indicative of a flatmate arrangement whereby [Mr M (Jnr)] was the head tenant and the applicant was a flatmate for the following reasons: a. The extent of sharing of living facilities (such as cooking, bathroom, sitting room and laundry) was limited. [Mr M (Jnr)] had his own semi self-contained area and only used the areas occupied by the applicant and the Other Occupants occasionally. The only area the applicant regularly shared with [Mr M (Jnr)] was the laundry; b. The area occupied by the applicant and the Other Occupants was, apart from the laundry and use of the bathroom by one of the Other Occupants, self- contained; c. Despite the sliding door in the Hallway being unlocked, the applicant did not have unimpeded access to the area occupied mainly by [Mr M (Jnr)]. The applicant did not have a key to the Main Entrance and had been told by [Mr M (Jnr)] not to use the Main Entrance. The only reason for the applicant to access this area was to use the laundry.
I find that the arrangement between the parties was a tenancy within the meaning of section 2 of the RTA.
The “premises” for the purpose of the tenancy was the Master Bedroom, the living areas on the Sunroom Entrance side of the sliding door in the Hallway and the shared laundry.
Section 4 of the RTA provides that the RTA “... applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided”. Therefore, unless the tenancy is an excluded tenancy under section 5(n) of the RTA (see below) the RTA applies. D. WHO IS THE LANDLORD?
Having found that arrangement is a tenancy, it is necessary to determine if it is an excluded tenancy under section 5(n) of the RTA. However, to do this, it is first necessary to determine who the landlord is. [Mr M (Jnr)] says that if the arrangement between the parties is found to be a residential tenancy, then he, not Res Co, is the landlord.
Section 2 of the RTA defines landlord as: ... landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement; and, where appropriate, includes— (a) a prospective landlord; and (b) a former landlord; and (c) a lawful successor in title of a landlord to the premises; and (d) the personal representative of a deceased landlord; and (e) an agent of a landlord
[Mr M (Jnr)] says that he is the landlord because he was the one who granted the tenancy to the applicant. Specifically, he says that it was him who interviewed the applicant to decide if he was suitable and who signed the tenancy agreement. [Mr M (Jnr)] further says that all the applicant’s dealings regarding the premises were with him.
[Mr M (Jnr)] further says that there is no agency agreement the Trustee Co and Res Co. He refers to the Trustee Co being the sole shareholder of Res Co. However, this does not prevent Trustee Co from acting as an agent for Res Co.
I find that the landlord is The Trustee Co As Agent for Res Co for the following reasons: a. The tenant paid rent to Res Co’s bank account: The Agreement records the Res Co bank account as the bank account to which the applicant was to pay rent. This reflects what happened in practice. It is difficult to see why, if [Mr M (Jnr)] was the landlord, the Applicant would pay rent to Res Co’s bank account. b. The description given of the landlord in the Agreement: While not determinative, the description of the landlord in the Agreement is a relevant factor to be considered as it shows the intention of the parties. The Agreement describes the “Landlord/Head Tenant” as “... [Trustee Co] Ltd. Represented [Mr M (Jnr)] as trustee of the [x Trust] for [Res Co]”. I consider the most logical interpretation of this to be that the landlord is Res Co; Trustee Co is acting for Res Co as an agent; and Trustee Co is represented by [Mr M (Jnr)]. While there is no evidence of a written agency agreement the Trustee Co and Res Co, the Agreement provides that the Trustee Co is acting for Res Co. I find that Trustee Co was acting as the Agent for Res Co. c. A representative/agent granted the tenancy to and dealt with the applicant: I accept [Mr M (Jnr)]’s evidence that it was he who: interviewed the applicant; who signed the Agreement; and who dealt with the applicant with all matters relating to the tenancy. However, I do not consider that [Mr M (Jnr)] was doing so in his personal capacity. He is a director of Res Co and the Trustee Co. I consider that when granting the tenancy, he was either doing so as a director of Res Co or as a director of Res Co’s agent, the Trustee Co. E. IS THE TENANCY AN EXCLUDED TENANCY UNDER SECTION 5(N) OF

THE RTA?

Section 5(n) of the RTA provides 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. Can a limited company or a Trust have family members for the purpose of section 5(n) of the RTA?
Section 2 of the RTA provides the following definition of member of the landlord’s or owner’s family: ... in relation to a landlord or an owner, means— any person who is or has been related to the landlord or owner— (i) by blood; or (ii) by or through marriage, a civil union, or a de facto relationship; or (iii) by adoption: (b) any other person who is a member of the landlord’s or owner’s whānau or other culturally recognised family group: (c )any child who is being, or is to be, cared for on a continuous basis by— (i) the landlord or owner; or (ii) the landlord’s or owner’s spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner
[Mr M (Jnr)] says that while the certificate of title records Res Co as the owner of the premises, the reality is that the premises is owned by the family trust.
The owner of land is the person / entity named on the Certificate of Title. [Mr M (Jnr)] says that the only reason Res Co is the owner on the Certificate of Title is because the Trust could not be the owner. A trust is not a legal entity and cannot own property. However, it is common practice for the registered owner of land to be recorded on the certificate of title as, for example, John Brown and Brown Trustees Limited as trustees of the Brown Family Trust. This indicates that while J Brown and the limited company are the legal owners of the land, they are holding it in a fiduciary capacity for the Brown Family Trust.
No doubt the trustees had a reason for recording Res Co as the owner of the premises without reference to it being held in a fiduciary capacity for MF Trust. A limited company is a separate legal entity and where a party records a limited company as the owner of the premises, they must accept both the benefits and the disadvantages of doing so.
There have been several decisions of this Tribunal where it has had to consider if a limited company can have family members. Most of them relate to section 51 of the RTA which provided that a landlord could terminate a tenancy where a family member of the landlord or the owner of the premises was moving into the premises. 3
In Balmoral Properties Ltd v Kelly TT Auckland TT69999, 15 September 1999, the landlord was a limited company and terminated the tenancy under section 51 of the RTA saying that one of the owners of the company required the premises for himself. The Tribunal found that the company could not personally occupy the premises, so the corporate landlord could not terminate the tenancy under that section.
In Compass Property Management Limited v The Applicant/s] [2024] NZTT 4775024, 4805239 the Tribunal said: I find that a corporate owner cannot rely on section 51(1)(a) of the Act. The owner must be able to give a different reason for termination under section 51(1) and (2). This may sound like a technical distinction, but it is difficult to see how a corporate owner can have family as that term is defined in section 2(1) of the Act. Having chosen to structure the tenancy through a corporate landlord, the 63-day notice provision under section 51(1)(a) was not available to the directors and shareholders of the owner.
Even if I had accepted that it was the Trust which was the owner of the premises, I consider it is unlikely the Trust could be said to have a family member. In Wheeler v Davis [2000] NZTT 290, the Tribunal considered a matter where a trustee was intending to occupy the premises. Adjudicator Large determined that a trust was analogous to a company, and stated: ... [t]here is no ability for a Trust to give notice pursuant to s51(1)(a) and seek possession because a Trust cannot occupy the property and neither can a Trust have members of a family which would allow s51 (1)(a) Notice to be given. A Trust is akin to a Company, a legal entity in its own right, and if Trustees were able to personally occupy premises pursuant to s51 (1)(a) after 42 days, there would be nothing to prevent Company Directors doing the same. Such an interpretation is not in accord in my view, with the clear intent of the legislature. 3 This was before the RTA was amended on 30 January 2026. Prior to this (broadly) a landlord had to have a reason to terminate a periodic tenancy. This section now provides that if an owner of a premises requires the premises as the principal place of residence for a minimum period for “the owner or a member of the owner’s family” ... a shorter notice period applies instead of the standard 90 days.
The Tribunal is not obliged to follow its own decisions. However, I agree with the rationale for the findings in the above cases on whether a company or a trust can have family members. I find that neither Res Co or the Trust could have family members for the purposes of section 5(n) of the RTA. Were the premises principally used as a place of residence by [Mr M (Jnr)]?
If I am wrong and Res Co could have family members and [Mr M (Jnr)] was a family member, I do not consider that the tenancy was an excluded tenancy under section 5(n) of the RTA. As set out above the test is whether the premises are used during the tenancy principally as a place of residency by the landlord or the owner, or a member of the landlord’s or the owner’s family.
In some situations, the application of this test is straightforward. Consider the following example. Mr and Mrs A own a 5-bedroom home which they live in with their three young children. They have a spare bedroom and decide to take in a lodger. Clearly their home is principally used as a place of residence for them and their family. If it was just Mrs A who owned and lived in the premises and she took in 4 “lodgers” for the other rooms, the situation would not be as clear. Mrs A would still live in the home for the same amount of time, however, it would be difficult to argue that the home was principally used as her place of residence.
In this matter, I have found that the premises was the Master Bedroom, the living areas on the Sunroom Entrance side of the sliding door in the Hallway and shared use laundry.
As I have found that the only use [Mr M (Jnr)] had of the premises was occasional use of the kitchen in the Main Living Area, the premises could not be said to be used principally as a place of residence for [Mr M (Jnr)].
If I am wrong, and the premises consisted of both areas on either side of the sliding door in the Hallway, I do not consider the premises could be found to be used as a principal place of residence for [Mr M (Jnr)]. This is because [Mr M (Jnr)] was only 1 of 4 residents.
Previous Orders of this Tribunal have held that the exclusion did not apply where the landlord the house was shared with several other residents and the landlord occupied only one bedroom; 4 where the son of the landlord shared the premises with several others; 5 and where the landlords’ and their son shared the premises with five other occupants. 6 4 Musson v Dobrisek DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006-032-36, 5 May 2006 at [33]-[46]. 5 Barnes v Kawhe [2014] NZTT Christchurch 1700 at [27]-[28]. 6 Green v Norrie [2015] NZTT Christchurch 498 at [14]. F. SHOULD [MR M (JNR)] BE JOINED TO THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE

SUBSTANTIVE HEARING?

The applicant has asked for [Mr M (Jnr)] to be joined personally for the purposes of the issues to be determined at the substantive hearing. I decline to do so.
As set out above, I do not find that [Mr M (Jnr)] was acting in his personal capacity but as the director of Res Co and/ or as the representative or director of the Trustee Co, the agent for Res Co. G. SHOULD THE BOND BE PAID TO THE BOND CENTRE?
The parties agree that the applicant paid a bond to the Res Co bank account. As the arrangement has been found to be a tenancy and subject to the RTA, the landlord, the Trustee Co as Agent for Res Co, is to transfer the bond to the Bond Centre immediately in accordance with section 19 of the RTA.
For the avoidance of doubt, immediately means as soon as possible and no later than 2 working days of the respondent’s receipt of this Order.
The bond shall remain at the Bond Centre until the substantive matter has been determined. H. INTERIM SUPPRESSION:
Both parties have requested suppression of their names. Broadly, apart from in limited circumstances, the Tribunal must issue suppression of a party’s name where the party is wholly or substantially successful.
Until the substantive hearing is complete, it is not possible to determine if either party has been wholly or substantially successful. The parties’ names and identifying details are suppressed until the Orders for the substantive claims have been issued. I. CASE MANAGEMENT:
The parties were aware that a possible outcome of the process was that the arrangement would be found to be a tenancy subject to the RTA. If so, a further hearing would be required to determine the substantive claims.
In order to simplify the process should a further hearing be required, a short Case Management Conference was held at the end of the hearing on 27 March 2026. The directions following that conference are set out below:

CASE MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS

The tenant’s claims:

The tenant claims that the landlord breached: a. Section 19(1) of the RTA by failing to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within 23 working days of receipt; b. Section 32(1) of the RTA by charging a fee under clause 17 of the Agreement which the tenant says was a penalty clause; c. Section 38 of the RTA by interfering with his right to quiet enjoyment of the premises and that this breach amounted to harassment within the meaning of section 38(3) of the RTA; d. Section 48 of the RTA by failing to give the correct period of notice in respect of: i. An inspection of his room and ensuite bathroom; ii. Allowing a cleaner to clean his bathroom. e. Section 137(1) of the RTA by making a contract/arrangement for the purpose of “ defeating, evading, or preventing the operation of any of the provisions of ...” the RTA. Specifically, the tenant said that the Agreement (see paragraph INSERT above) was a ‘sham’ contract designed to avoid the operation of the RTA.
The tenant seeks: a. Refund of the bond; b. Exemplary damages.
By 4pm on 04 May 2026, the tenant is to provide to the Tribunal by emailing the Tribunal at remote.tenancy@justice.govt.nz (and copying the landlord): a. Details of the matters he asserts amounted to a breach of his quiet enjoyment. This is to include: the date and time of the alleged incident (or approximate date and time); where the incident took place; what occurred; who was present. b. Specific amounts of compensation he is seeking for each breach and the type of compensation. I.e. is it exemplary damages or general compensation? How much is he seeking for breach of the RTA? The landlord’s claims:
The landlord said that if Tribunal finds it has jurisdiction to hear the matter, the landlord intends to lodge a claim for: a. Breach of the tenancy agreement. Specifically, [Mr M (Jnr)] says the tenancy was for a fixed term of 12 months and the tenant breached the agreement by ending the tenancy before the end of the fixed term and/or not giving the correct notice; b. Cleaning costs; c. Damage to the premises; and d. Deduction from the bond of any sums awarded.
If the landlord wishes for its claims to be considered at the next hearing, the landlord must by 04 May 2026 lodge its claim with the Tribunal and pay the corresponding fee. The landlord should reference this application (No. 5401568) in the application form.
The landlord is to ensure that a rent summary is provided with its application. The rent summary must cover the full period of the tenancy and be in the form set out on Tenancy Services website at: https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/rent-bond-and- bills/rent/receipts-and-records/. The only payments that should be included in the rent summary are rent. The rent summary is to include a running total of any arrears. An example is as follows: Number of weeks Rent due date Rent period from Rent period to Rent amount due Rent amount paid Rent paid date Arrears
01.202501.01.202507.01.20251000.00800.0001.01.2025200.00
01.202508.01.202514.01.20251000.00300.0008.01.2025900.00
15.01.202515.01.202521.01.20251000.000.001900.00
22.01.202522.01.202529.01.20251000.000.002900.00 Documents and other evidence:
If either party has any additional documents they wish to be considered at the next hearing, they are to provide them to the Tribunal no later than 10 working days before the next hearing.
Documents and other evidence are to be: a. Uploaded to the file; or b. Emailed to remote.tenancy@justice.govt.nz and copied to the other party; or c. Delivered to the public counter at the Hamilton District Court, 116 Anglesea Street Hamilton. Witnesses:
If a party wishes to call a witness, they should notify the Tribunal of the witnesses’ name(s) at least 5 working days prior to the hearing.
It is up to the party calling the witness to ensure a correct telephone number is provided to the Tribunal and the witness is available to take the call.
If either party has a witness who does not agree to attend the hearing, they can be summonsed. To do this the party will need to contact Tenancy Services no later than 5 working days before the hearing to make this request. The next hearing:
The next hearing is to be listed for a full day (9.30am to 4.30pm with one hour for lunch) by video conference. Tenancy Services will advise the parties in writing of the date and time for the next hearing.
If any party is unavailable to attend the hearing on that date, they are to notify the Tribunal by email (remote.tenancy@justice.govt.nz) without delay, providing the reason why they cannot attend (i.e. pre booked travel or medical appointment) and evidence (i.e. flight bookings or details of medical appointments).

Tenancy Tribunal case 5401568 — Cleanliness

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5401568 — Cleanliness

Claims & awards

Order

FOLLOWING PRELIMINARY HEARING

Reasons

TENANCY?

THE RTA?

SUBSTANTIVE HEARING?

CASE MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

FOLLOWING PRELIMINARY HEARING

Reasons

TENANCY?

THE RTA?

SUBSTANTIVE HEARING?

CASE MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions