Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5442369 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 24 Feb 2026 · Published 24 Feb 2026 · Application 5442369
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
R Harvey-Lane
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 Tribunal orders suppression of the applicant’s and respondent’s name and identifying details.
- The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Reasons
- The respondent attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the applicant.
- However, rather than dismiss the application for lack of appearance by the applicant and given: a. The documentation provided by the applicant in advance of the hearing. b. The attendance by the respondent. c. The hearing only being to determine jurisdiction in the first instance.
- I concluded that I had sufficient information to proceed. 1 1 See section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
- The applicant has applied for an order declaring her tenancy termination as unlawful and seeking to have the tenancy arrangement continue. Background
- In early 2022 the parties agreed that the applicant could park a horse box and two caravans on a portion of land at the property. The applicant was also allowed to have one horse. The terms of the arrangement were recorded in an email with the subject, Terms. Nothing in the document refers to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
- No facilities or services were initially included or provided by the landlord as part of the occupation. The respondent advised that later in the occupation period the applicant had been able to access water from another part of the property.
- The applicant’s occupation was only for a portion of land within the wider property. There was also a house on the wider property, but it had been (for the most part) occupied by a third-party tenant and the applicant did not have any agreed access to it.
- In return for the applicant’s land occupation, the applicant paid $20.00 per week and agreed to carry out works to the land.
- On 20 December 2025 the respondent gave notice to the applicant to quit the property, requesting that she removed all personal belongings (including vehicles, livestock, stored appliances, gates and timber) within two months.
- The applicant has requested that this notice to quit be considered unlawful, and that she be able to continue to occupy the property. Discussion
- The first matter I must consider is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine this dispute.
- The RTA states that the Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided. 2 Residential premises are defined as any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence. 3
- The RTA, however, does not apply to the list of exclusions listed in section 5(1) of the RTA and include where the premises comprise bare land (with or without 2 Section 4 of the RTA. 3 Section 2(1) of the RTA. facilities) on which the tenant has the right under the agreement to place or erect a mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter. 4
- I consider here that the circumstances squarely fall within this exclusion. The applicant was allowed to park her caravan, horse box and belongings on bare land, there were no residential premises included and therefore the exclusion in the RTA applies.
- Section 8 of the RTA states that the parties may agree in writing that the RTA applies despite an applicable exclusion, but there is also no evidence of such an agreement here.
- It follows that any dispute arising in respect of the applicant’s occupation is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the application that the termination or notice to quit be declared unlawful is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Suppression
- I see no reason of public interest for the identity of the parties to be published and so I have, on my own accord, granted name suppression to both parties. 5 R Harvey-Lane 24 February 2026 4 Section 5(1)(t) of the RTA. 5 Section 95A of the RTA.