What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5418430?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5418430?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418430?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418430?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13073616-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5418430?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5418430?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418430?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418430?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13073616-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 909, 11 Liverpool Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5418430 — Mould

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Applicant attended the hearing with a support person. A Mandarin interpreter was also present to assist the Applicant. The Respondent did not appear.
The Applicant has applied for a refund of the bond. Jurisdiction
There is a preliminary issue whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Today’s hearing is to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the Applicants application.
Section 2(1) RTA 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 ’residential premises’, ‘tenancy’, and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined 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 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 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Section 5(n) excludes arrangements where the premises are being used for residence by the Landlord or family. This section envisages home owners renting out spare rooms in a flatmate or boarding type situation.
Section 10 RTA 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.
The District Court in Adams v Massey University Palmerston North TT 43/94, 10 October 1994 provided that in order to give effect to the RTAs true intent, the exemptions in section 5 should be interpreted strictly.
The High Court decision of Harding v Shellevis, Tan and Caroto [2021] NZHC1265 found that the decisive factor in determining whether a premises is a separate household is the “self-contained character”, its exclusive use by the occupiers and exclusive use of the rest of the dwelling by the Appellant and her family.
The definition of ‘flatmates’ was found to be a co-operative arrangement whereby. 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 1 .
The Applicant and Respondent signed a document on 17 November 2025 which was handwritten in Mandarin. The document stated that it certified Ms Ma rented a small bedroom, Room 909 for $190.00 per week from 18 November 2025 to 31 March 2026. The rent included water, electricity and internet. When the rental period ended, the Landlord would inspect the room, refund the bond to the Tenant and the Tenant would return the key.
The Applicant submitted the property was a three-bedroom apartment. She occupied one bedroom which had a bed, chair, cabinet and desk. There were two other bedrooms occupied by other people. She shared the laundry, bathroom, kitchen and lounge with the other occupants but she did not know them before she moved in. She also did not know where the Respondent lived. She had a lock on her door to prevent people coming in and she did not have access to the other bedrooms. Because the room had mould issues, she brought an application to the Tribunal.
In considering the evidence, I find this arrangement is a flat sharing agreement where the Respondent occupied one bedroom in an apartment with two other flatmates. Her bedroom was not self-contained so she shared the lounge, bathroom and kitchen with the other flatmates. This is not a Tenancy Agreement because it does not fit the definition of a boarding house given there are less than six bedrooms.
For these reasons, the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the application. The Applicant may wish to consider pursuing the Disputes Tribunal.
The application is dismissed. 1 Tenant v Graddon [2021] NZRTT 4299640

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Applicant attended the hearing with a support person. A Mandarin interpreter was also present to assist the Applicant. The Respondent did not appear.
The Applicant has applied for a refund of the bond. Jurisdiction
There is a preliminary issue whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Today’s hearing is to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the Applicants application.
Section 2(1) RTA 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 ’residential premises’, ‘tenancy’, and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined 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 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 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Section 5(n) excludes arrangements where the premises are being used for residence by the Landlord or family. This section envisages home owners renting out spare rooms in a flatmate or boarding type situation.
Section 10 RTA 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.
The District Court in Adams v Massey University Palmerston North TT 43/94, 10 October 1994 provided that in order to give effect to the RTAs true intent, the exemptions in section 5 should be interpreted strictly.
The High Court decision of Harding v Shellevis, Tan and Caroto [2021] NZHC1265 found that the decisive factor in determining whether a premises is a separate household is the “self-contained character”, its exclusive use by the occupiers and exclusive use of the rest of the dwelling by the Appellant and her family.
The definition of ‘flatmates’ was found to be a co-operative arrangement whereby. 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 1 .
The Applicant and Respondent signed a document on 17 November 2025 which was handwritten in Mandarin. The document stated that it certified Ms Ma rented a small bedroom, Room 909 for $190.00 per week from 18 November 2025 to 31 March 2026. The rent included water, electricity and internet. When the rental period ended, the Landlord would inspect the room, refund the bond to the Tenant and the Tenant would return the key.
The Applicant submitted the property was a three-bedroom apartment. She occupied one bedroom which had a bed, chair, cabinet and desk. There were two other bedrooms occupied by other people. She shared the laundry, bathroom, kitchen and lounge with the other occupants but she did not know them before she moved in. She also did not know where the Respondent lived. She had a lock on her door to prevent people coming in and she did not have access to the other bedrooms. Because the room had mould issues, she brought an application to the Tribunal.
In considering the evidence, I find this arrangement is a flat sharing agreement where the Respondent occupied one bedroom in an apartment with two other flatmates. Her bedroom was not self-contained so she shared the lounge, bathroom and kitchen with the other flatmates. This is not a Tenancy Agreement because it does not fit the definition of a boarding house given there are less than six bedrooms.
For these reasons, the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the application. The Applicant may wish to consider pursuing the Disputes Tribunal.
The application is dismissed. 1 Tenant v Graddon [2021] NZRTT 4299640

Tenancy Tribunal case 5418430 — Mould at Room 909, 11 Liverpool Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5418430 — Mould at Room 909, 11 Liverpool Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions