Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5427329 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 30 Mar 2026 · Published 30 Mar 2026 · Application 5427329
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
S Young
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
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
- The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claims, and they are dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the remote hearing on 30 March 2026.
- The tenant was assisted by an interpreter. The landlord was represented by Ms Scoular. I have, solely for ease of reference, referred to the parties as “landlord” and “tenant” during the course of this order.
- The tenancy commenced on 26 December 2024 and ended on 28 March 2026. 4The tenant’s claims were filed on 17 January 2026.
- Today’s hearing was to consider whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the tenant’s claims.
- The Tribunal has considered all the material provided 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. Background
- The landlord owns a block of land outside Wanaka of approximately 4.5 acres. The landlord said that from time to time he leases blocks of the land to “tenants” to park their caravans or mobile homes.
- The landlord lives on the property in a house (“the main house”). The land is not zoned or registered as a caravan park.
- The tenant owns a caravan. The caravan is fully self-contained.
- The tenant said that in 2024 she was looking for land on which to park her caravan. A friend referred her to the landlord. She approached the landlord who agreed that she could park her caravan on his land at what was then a cost of $150.00 per week. There is no written tenancy agreement.
- The tenant’s evidence was that the parties agreed at the commencement of the arrangement, that at all times she would have access to the main house. The tenant said that whilst her caravan was fully self-contained, she preferred to use the shower and toilet in the main house so that she did not have to dispose of wastewater and blackwater. She used that facilities in the main house on an almost daily basis. From time to time the landlord would invite her to eat with him at no extra cost.
- The landlord said that the use of the facilities in the main house was at no extra cost to the tenant. It was done as an act of kindness. He said that the tenant would come and use the facilities on a weekly basis. Law
- Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 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 RTA applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
- 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 ‘premises,’ ‘residential premises,’ ‘tenancy,’ and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined in section 2(1) RTA 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 • 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 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the RTA.
- Section 5(1)(t) RTA 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(the emphasis is mine). The definition of “facilities” in the RTA incudes “cooking facilities and toilet and washing facilities”
- Section 8 RTA 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 toilet and bathroom in the main house in return for the payment of rent.
- The initial agreement between the parties therefore fulfilled the requirements of a residential tenancy agreement.
- The agreement, was however, statutorily excluded under s.5(1)(t) RTA because it concerned bare land, upon which the tenant intended to place their own dwelling (in this case a caravan).
- There is no evidence that the parties agreed to contract back into the provisions of the RTA.
- Accordingly, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction and the tenant’s claims are dismissed. I explained to the tenant at the hearing, that in the event that jurisdiction was declined, she could still proceed in other jurisdictions. Name suppression
- Both parties have applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful in these proceedings. The name and details of the landlord are suppressed. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.