What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5412249 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claims, and they are

How much money was awarded in case 5412249?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5412249?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5412249?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13085606-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5412249 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claims, and they are

How much money was awarded in case 5412249?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5412249?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5412249?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13085606-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1784A Whaanga Road, Raglan, RD 2, Raglan 3296 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5412249 — Boarding House

Order

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claims, and they are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant’s claim was filed on 12 December 2025. The landlord’s counterclaim was filed on 14 December 2025. The landlord’s application does not contain any substantive claim and challenges the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear the claims on the basis that the parties have not entered into a residential tenancy agreement.
The Tribunal has considered all the material provided, including photographs, and has heard oral evidence from both parties. I have taken into account everything presented to the Tribunal, even if I do not refer to it specifically.
The tenant states that they were already in an existing tenancy with the landlord for another property. The tenant expressed a desire to lease some land from the landlord onto which they would move their own tiny home (dwelling). There was no commencement date. The tenant stated that there was a delay concerning finance. They state the landlord helped locate a suitable dwelling. The tenant stated that the landlord also offered to build a dwelling although it would belong to the tenant. The tenant stated while this was completed that the tenant could move onto the property and live in a shed previously used by the landlord for a workspace and for storage.
The shed does not have a toilet or bathroom; these are contained in other outbuildings, of which others occupying the land have access. The tenant stated the landlord told them new tenants had been arranged to move into their existing property on or about 12 November 2025. The tenant stated that around late October 2025 the landlord helped moved their personal possessions into the shed. They state the landlord extended the kitchen and agreed to install a stove and rangehood.
The tenant stated they ceased rent payments on their previous property and made their first payment under the new agreement of $129.00 per week.
The tenant stated that within a week of moving into the shed that they discovered the landlord was not going to build a suitable dwelling, it being too small. Thereafter, the relationship deteriorated, and the tenant gave notice and vacated the property on 25 January 2026.
The landlord accepted that the parties had entered in an oral agreement whereby the tenant would lease a section of the landlord’s land and place their own tiny home on it. The accepted that they had taken to tenant to look at a suitable dwelling and had offered to build one for the tenant, stating that they had built one previously. They state the tenant rejected their offer.
The landlord states that they made it clear that the shed on the property was for commercial use only and not fit for residential purposes; that while it had water, it did not have a bathroom or toilet, and that they believed the tenant was going to use the shed for storage and an art space as intended.
The landlord accepted that they had helped move some of the tenant’s possessions into the shed but believed they were to be stored until the tenant arranged a dwelling, and that the tenant was spending time at the property planting and establishing gardens.
The landlord states while they were aware that the tenant had moved out of their existing property that they were unaware that the tenant had not secured a dwelling.
The landlord stated that around 19 November 2025 they discovered the tenant was living in the shed, which voided their insurance, and reiterated to the tenant that they were not to reside in the shed.
The landlord stated that they had secured some kitchen cabinetry, but not brought it in, and had agreed to install a stove, which they did not feel altered the intended use of the shed from art space to residential premises.
The tenant stated that the landlord was regular visitor to the property, and they had helped the tenant move and was well aware they are residing in the shed. The tenant argues that the landlord had actual knowledge that they had moved into the shed/ art space, that their occupation was obvious, that the landlord allowed this to continue in return for rent.
The landlord denies that they were aware that the tenant has started to live in the shed / art space until the visited the property on or about 19 November 2025, and that upon doing do that immediately advised the tenant that they could not do so. Law
Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies.
Section 4 provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Section 2(1) of the Act defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy.
The terms ‘premises,’ ‘residential premises,’ ‘tenancy,’ and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined in section 2(1) as: • Residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful. • Premises includes (other than in relation to a boarding house tenancy, in which case the definition in section 66B applies)— • any part of any premises; and • any land and appurtenances, other than facilities; and • any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land. • Tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy. • Tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises; and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement.
Section 5 sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act.
Section 5(1)(t) provides that the Act does not apply: • Where the premises comprise bare land (with or without facilities) on which the tenant has the right under the tenancy agreement to place or erect a mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter.
Section 8 of the Act states that parties to excluded tenancies may nevertheless agree in writing that all or any of the provisions of this Act shall apply in respect of the tenancy.
Section 10 of the Act provides that, where a party to proceedings contends that the Act does not apply, they must establish the facts supporting their contention. In other words, they have the burden of proving the Act does not apply. Analysis and jurisdiction
The landlord granted the tenant the right to place a dwelling on the land, and to use nearby facilities, namely the shed for storage and an art space, and the separate toilet and shower, which they shared with others.
The initial agreement therefore fulfilled the requirements of a residential tenancy agreement.
The agreement, was however, statutorily excluded under section 5(1)(t) of the Act because it concerned bare land, upon which the tenant intended to place their own dwelling.
There is no evidence that the parties agreed to contract back into the provisions of the Act.
This exclusion only applied while the premises were bare land. The issue in this case is not necessarily the existence of a new agreement, but whether the original oral agreement was varied by conduct such that the premises ceased to be bare land and became the shed / art space.
The question is therefore whether the parties varied the initial agreement.
This is a tenant said versus landlord says situation. There is a direct conflict of evidence requiring an assessment of credibility. While there are some text messages between the pair, they do not form a complete picture, and a significant amount of the correspondence has occurred after the dispute arose.
I prefer the landlord’s evidence as being more reliable. I am satisfied the landlord has discharged their evidential burden. Prior to 19 November 2025 I am not satisfied that the landlord knew that the tenant was living in the shed / art space or that they consented to any variation of the agreement such that the premises ceased to be bare land only. I find it unlikely that the landlord would have knowingly permitted the tenant to live in the shed knowing that it would void their insurance. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction and the tenant’s claims are dismissed. Name suppression
Neither party seeks name suppression, and no orders are made.

Order

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claims, and they are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant’s claim was filed on 12 December 2025. The landlord’s counterclaim was filed on 14 December 2025. The landlord’s application does not contain any substantive claim and challenges the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear the claims on the basis that the parties have not entered into a residential tenancy agreement.
The Tribunal has considered all the material provided, including photographs, and has heard oral evidence from both parties. I have taken into account everything presented to the Tribunal, even if I do not refer to it specifically.
The tenant states that they were already in an existing tenancy with the landlord for another property. The tenant expressed a desire to lease some land from the landlord onto which they would move their own tiny home (dwelling). There was no commencement date. The tenant stated that there was a delay concerning finance. They state the landlord helped locate a suitable dwelling. The tenant stated that the landlord also offered to build a dwelling although it would belong to the tenant. The tenant stated while this was completed that the tenant could move onto the property and live in a shed previously used by the landlord for a workspace and for storage.
The shed does not have a toilet or bathroom; these are contained in other outbuildings, of which others occupying the land have access. The tenant stated the landlord told them new tenants had been arranged to move into their existing property on or about 12 November 2025. The tenant stated that around late October 2025 the landlord helped moved their personal possessions into the shed. They state the landlord extended the kitchen and agreed to install a stove and rangehood.
The tenant stated they ceased rent payments on their previous property and made their first payment under the new agreement of $129.00 per week.
The tenant stated that within a week of moving into the shed that they discovered the landlord was not going to build a suitable dwelling, it being too small. Thereafter, the relationship deteriorated, and the tenant gave notice and vacated the property on 25 January 2026.
The landlord accepted that the parties had entered in an oral agreement whereby the tenant would lease a section of the landlord’s land and place their own tiny home on it. The accepted that they had taken to tenant to look at a suitable dwelling and had offered to build one for the tenant, stating that they had built one previously. They state the tenant rejected their offer.
The landlord states that they made it clear that the shed on the property was for commercial use only and not fit for residential purposes; that while it had water, it did not have a bathroom or toilet, and that they believed the tenant was going to use the shed for storage and an art space as intended.
The landlord accepted that they had helped move some of the tenant’s possessions into the shed but believed they were to be stored until the tenant arranged a dwelling, and that the tenant was spending time at the property planting and establishing gardens.
The landlord states while they were aware that the tenant had moved out of their existing property that they were unaware that the tenant had not secured a dwelling.
The landlord stated that around 19 November 2025 they discovered the tenant was living in the shed, which voided their insurance, and reiterated to the tenant that they were not to reside in the shed.
The landlord stated that they had secured some kitchen cabinetry, but not brought it in, and had agreed to install a stove, which they did not feel altered the intended use of the shed from art space to residential premises.
The tenant stated that the landlord was regular visitor to the property, and they had helped the tenant move and was well aware they are residing in the shed. The tenant argues that the landlord had actual knowledge that they had moved into the shed/ art space, that their occupation was obvious, that the landlord allowed this to continue in return for rent.
The landlord denies that they were aware that the tenant has started to live in the shed / art space until the visited the property on or about 19 November 2025, and that upon doing do that immediately advised the tenant that they could not do so. Law
Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies.
Section 4 provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Section 2(1) of the Act defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy.
The terms ‘premises,’ ‘residential premises,’ ‘tenancy,’ and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined in section 2(1) as: • Residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful. • Premises includes (other than in relation to a boarding house tenancy, in which case the definition in section 66B applies)— • any part of any premises; and • any land and appurtenances, other than facilities; and • any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land. • Tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy. • Tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises; and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement.
Section 5 sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act.
Section 5(1)(t) provides that the Act does not apply: • Where the premises comprise bare land (with or without facilities) on which the tenant has the right under the tenancy agreement to place or erect a mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter.
Section 8 of the Act states that parties to excluded tenancies may nevertheless agree in writing that all or any of the provisions of this Act shall apply in respect of the tenancy.
Section 10 of the Act provides that, where a party to proceedings contends that the Act does not apply, they must establish the facts supporting their contention. In other words, they have the burden of proving the Act does not apply. Analysis and jurisdiction
The landlord granted the tenant the right to place a dwelling on the land, and to use nearby facilities, namely the shed for storage and an art space, and the separate toilet and shower, which they shared with others.
The initial agreement therefore fulfilled the requirements of a residential tenancy agreement.
The agreement, was however, statutorily excluded under section 5(1)(t) of the Act because it concerned bare land, upon which the tenant intended to place their own dwelling.
There is no evidence that the parties agreed to contract back into the provisions of the Act.
This exclusion only applied while the premises were bare land. The issue in this case is not necessarily the existence of a new agreement, but whether the original oral agreement was varied by conduct such that the premises ceased to be bare land and became the shed / art space.
The question is therefore whether the parties varied the initial agreement.
This is a tenant said versus landlord says situation. There is a direct conflict of evidence requiring an assessment of credibility. While there are some text messages between the pair, they do not form a complete picture, and a significant amount of the correspondence has occurred after the dispute arose.
I prefer the landlord’s evidence as being more reliable. I am satisfied the landlord has discharged their evidential burden. Prior to 19 November 2025 I am not satisfied that the landlord knew that the tenant was living in the shed / art space or that they consented to any variation of the agreement such that the premises ceased to be bare land only. I find it unlikely that the landlord would have knowingly permitted the tenant to live in the shed knowing that it would void their insurance. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction and the tenant’s claims are dismissed. Name suppression
Neither party seeks name suppression, and no orders are made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5412249 — Boarding House at 1784A Whaanga Road, Raglan, RD 2, Raglan 3296

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5412249 — Boarding House at 1784A Whaanga Road, Raglan, RD 2, Raglan 3296

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions