Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5423646 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 15 Feb 2026 · Published 15 Feb 2026 · Application 5423646
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
J Setefano
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Reasons
Background
- The applicants entered into a written agreement described as a “room sublet agreement” with the respondents. The applicants paid rent and a bond to the respondents and occupied a room within the premises for a period of time.
- The applicants seek repayment of the bond, alleging that it was not lodged with the Bond Centre as required.
- The respondents submit that the applicants were flatmates in a shared household, and that the Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction to determine the dispute. Issues for determination
- The sole issue for determination is whether the applicants occupied the premises as tenants under the that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”), or as flatmates in a private living arrangement to which the Act does not apply. Relevant law
- The Act applies only to residential tenancies as defined. See section 4 of the Act.
- Sections 77 and 78 of the Act limit the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to disputes between landlords and tenants relating to tenancies to which the Act applies.
- The Act does not apply to flatmate arrangements. Where a person occupies a room within premises shared with another occupier, and does not have exclusive possession of the premises, the relationship is not a residential tenancy for the purposes of the Act.
- The Tribunal must assess the substance of the arrangement rather than the label used by the parties. The key consideration is whether the occupier had exclusive possession of the premises, or whether the occupation occurred as part of a shared household under the control of another occupier. Analysis
- The evidence establishes that the applicants occupied a single room within the premises that were also occupied by the respondent. The applicants shared common facilities, including the kitchen and laundry facility in the bathroom, with the respondents.
- The respondents lived at the premises throughout the relevant period and retained overall control of the household. The applicants did not have exclusive possession of the premises.
- Although the agreement was described as a “room sublet agreement” and a bond was paid, those factors are not determinative. The payment of a bond, or the use of tenancy-style terminology, does not of itself create a residential tenancy under the Act.
- Having regard to the totality of the evidence, I am satisfied that the arrangement was a flatmate arrangement rather than a residential tenancy.
- As the applicants were flatmates and not tenants, the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not apply. The Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction under the Act to determine the claim, including the claim for refund of bond.
- Any entitlement to repayment of money is a contractual matter that falls outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Name Suppression
- Pursuant to section 95A of the Act, the names of the applicants and the respondents, and any identifying details of the premises, are suppressed.
- This decision determines jurisdiction only and makes no findings on the merits of the underlying dispute. Publication of identifying details would serve no legitimate public interest and would risk unnecessary intrusion into the private affairs of the parties. In these circumstances, suppression is appropriate and proportionate.