What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5460954 about?

The tribunal order states: an application

How much money was awarded in case 5460954?

Section And Select ‘Forms’, Select T…: $29.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5460954?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5460954?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13828940-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5460954 about?

The tribunal order states: an application

How much money was awarded in case 5460954?

Section And Select ‘Forms’, Select T…: $29.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5460954?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5460954?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13828940-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

136 Sycamore Drive, Sunnynook, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5460954 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5460954. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
section and select ‘Forms’, select the Tenancy Tribunal application form. 8. If the landlord uses the paper application,	$29.00		section and select ‘Forms’, select the Tenancy Tribunal application form. 8. If the landlord uses the paper application

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5460954. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
section and select ‘Forms’, select the Tenancy Tribunal application form. 8. If the landlord uses the paper application,	$29.00		section and select ‘Forms’, select the Tenancy Tribunal application form. 8. If the landlord uses the paper application

Order

an application from Tenancy Services printed resources website. Enter the Tenancy Services section and select ‘Forms’, select the Tenancy Tribunal application form.

If the landlord uses the paper application, they can pay the $29.00 application fee by: a. cash at any Westpac bank b. phone or online bank transfer to: Account name: MBIE Dispute Resolution Account number: 03-0049-0001346-00 Reference: Application reference number (you will find this on your application form) Particulars: Initials of applicant’s first and surname.
The completed form (with all supporting documents), should be sent (after the filing fee has been paid) to: Tenancy Services PO Box 76469 Manukau 2241
If the landlords have not filed and served their cross application by 5:00pm on Tuesday 21 July 2026, a date and time for the substantive hearing of the tenants claims will be set down and heard without the landlords cross application. Directions for filing and serving evidence
If either party intends to produce any photographs, videos, WeChat messages, emails, text messages, submissions, witness statements and any other documents/evidence that they intend to rely on at the next hearing, they must file and serve copies of those documents/videos/photographs no later than 3 working days before the next hearing date, by: a. Filing the documents in the Tribunal by emailing them to the Tribunal at: aucklandmetrotenancy@justice.govt.nz ; and b. Serving them on each other by the tenants emailing the landlords at 53887421@qq.com, and the landlord emailing them to the tenants lawyers at skye@skyelan.co.nz (Zihe Lan for Mr Cai) or eric@cjlegal.co.nz (Cangjie Chen for Ms Li).
Photographs should be numbered and captioned.
All witness statements must be signed and dated by the witness before the witness statement is filed and served.
If either party intends to produce any additional evidence at the next hearing, that was not reasonably available to them with due diligence by the 2 working days before the hearing deadline, they must bring two copies of these documents and the originals to the Tribunal. One copy is for the Tribunal and one for the other party.
No later than 2 working days before the next scheduled hearing, each party must provide the Tribunal with a list of their witnesses and their contact details so their witnesses can be called during the hearing for cross examination on the contents of their witness statements.
The parties should bring any important original documents and two copies (one for the Tribunal and one for the other party) to the hearing for ease of reference. If these documents have been filed with the Tribunal and served on each other, there is no requirement to do so if the party choses not too. You will however need to be able to assist the Tribunal to locate any such important documents in its case management system by informing the Adjudicator the label/title the documents(s) were given when you uploaded them into the case management system or when they were sent to the registry.
Any videos the parties wish to rely on must be brought to the hearing on a laptop or mobile phone, especially when videos are often too large to email to the Tribunal or each other.
The landlord must have all invoices/receipts for remedial work completed, and the rent summary, they are relying on to support their claims, filed in the Tribunal and served on the tenant no later than 3 days before the next hearing date in accordance with paragraph 10 of this Order. Any invoices/receipts not submitted by that date will not be able to be relied on to support the landlords claims for compensation/general damages.
The tenants must be able to clearly identify the date and how their issues/claims were raised with the landlords, what the landlords did in response to them raising their issues/claims (if anything) and the date the issues/claims were remedied (if they have been remedied) or that they have not been remedied.
The burden of proof is on the party making a claim(s). Once the party has proved its claim(s) on the balance of probability, it is then for the other party to disprove that claim.

Reasons

Both parties attended the case management hearing on 30 June 2026.
Ms Yu Li is represented by Cangjie Chen from CJ Legal Limited.
Mr Yichen Cai is represented by Zihe (Skye) Lan.
The landlords were self-represented, but indicated they will instruct a lawyer for the hearing of the parties’ substantive claims. They are entitled to do so as the remedies sought by the tenants is greater than $6,000.00 in total.
The landlords and the Tribunal were supported by a mandarin interpreter, Sommer Tong. Jurisdiction
The tenants argue that they rented a separate self-contained area of the two story house and had a separate household to that of the landlords, who lived on the ground level of the house. Relevant law
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear disputes between landlords and tenants provided the dispute relates to a tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies.
The onus of proving that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction falls on the party asserting that the Tribunal does not have Jurisdiction (see section10 RTA). In this case, that onus falls on Wenhui Lu and Jiao Zhou.
Section 77 and 82(1) RTA, gives the Tenancy Tribunal sole originating jurisdiction to determine in accordance with the RTA all disputes arising between landlords and tenants in relation to any tenancy to which the RTA applies.
Section 2 RTA sets out the following material definitions: landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement tenant, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement 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 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 is defined as including: a. Any part of any premises; and b. Any land and appurtenances, other than facilities; and c. Any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land. 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;
Section 4 RTA provides that the RTA applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.
The exceptions to the RTA are contained in section 5. Section 5(1)(n) specifically excludes arrangements where the premises are being used for residence by the landlord or the landlord’s family. This section envisages owners of a home renting out their spare rooms in a flatmate or boarding type situation.
The District Court in Adams v Massey University Palmerston North TT 43/94, 10 October 1994, stated that in order to give effect to the RTA’s true intent and meaning, the exemptions in section 5 should be interpreted strictly and not liberally. Separate household units
As the dwelling is a building, the requirements of the Building Act 2004 (“the Building Act”) apply to it.
One of the types of buildings categorised in the Building Act is called a “household unit”. A household unit is defined in section of 7 of the Building Act as a building: “or part of a building that is used or intended to be used only or mainly for residential purposes; and is occupied, or intended to be occupied, exclusively as the home or residence of not more than 1 household”.
The Tenancy Tribunal deals predominantly with household units (with the exception of boarding houses).
The question of whether a premises is a separate household unit arose in the recent High Court decision Harding v Schellevis, Tan and Caroto [2021] NZHC 1265.
In that case, the landlord entered into a “flatmate/house-sharing agreement” with the tenants, which expressly recorded an acknowledgement that the premises were the primary residence of the landlord’s family and that therefore the RTA did not apply (see section 5(1)(n) of the RTA exclusion).
However, the Auckland Council previously confirmed to the landlord that the premises could not be tenanted as a separate household unit (e.g., no fire rated walls etc).
Analysing the actual situation, the Tribunal determined that the RTA did apply and that the building consisted of two separate and distinct household units.
The landlord appealed that finding to the District Court, which confirmed the Tribunal’s finding, and dismissed the landlord’s appeal.
The landlord then appealed to the High Court and the High Court confirmed both the District Court and Tribunal’s decision. Justice Walker in the High Court determined that: a. the natural and ordinary meaning of “premises” contemplates that there could be more than one “premises” within a larger premises; b. residential premises can include part of any premises used or intended for occupation as a place of residence; c. the Act supports a generous approach to jurisdiction for the Tribunal and conversely a strict approach to exceptions; d. the tenants did not have a right to occupy the areas used by the landlord, and there were no shared or common areas that would normally characterise a flat share. There was also no ability for the parties to enter the other parties dwelling, other than with consent.
Justice Walker concluded: “In my view, the decisive factor in this case must be the self-contained character of the granny flat, its exclusive use by the respondent occupiers and the exclusive use of the rest of the dwelling by the appellant and her family. There were no communal living or shared spaces but two separate and distinct household units within the dwelling. In these circumstances, the term “premises” cannot be interpreted as referring to the property in its entirety. The relevant premises is instead the functionally independent granny flat. That was not principally a place of residence of the appellant. It was solely occupied by the respondent. Section 5(1)(n) of the Act does not apply.”
The self-contained nature of the granny flat was decisive in Harding v Shellevis. However, even where there is some shared use of facilities, such as a toilet or shower, the RTA may still apply to a largely self-contained dwelling. This is because a tenancy agreement can include facilities provided for the non- exclusive use of the tenant. A couple of older Tribunal authorities illustrate this principle.
In Whitelock v McConway (Tenancy Tribunal Blenheim, 13 July 1995) the tenant occupied a sleepout a couple of meters from the main home occupied by the landlord. This comprised a bedroom, shower, toilet, and wash house attached to the garage. The tenant used a shared kitchen to prepare his breakfast and lunch.
Evening meals were mainly provided by the landlord. The landlord regarded the tenant as a boarder with free access to the facilities in the home.
The tenant was sharing kitchen, bathroom and laundry facilities with the landlord.
The Tribunal held that the area occupied by the tenant was part of the family home, because it did not have separate cooking facilities and contained the only shower and laundry. The tenant’s room was part of the landlord’s home and was excluded from jurisdiction pursuant to section 5(1)(n) of the RTA.
In Barnett v Dempsey (Tenancy Tribunal Auckland, 13 June 2003, TT 790/03) the tenant lived in a room in a converted garage a few meters from house occupied by the landlord and her daughter. The tenant had a fridge and a cooktop. The tenant had to wash his dishes in the kitchen of the house. He had a key to gain access to the house to use the shower and toilet. The tenant only used the lounge in the house when invited to do so by the landlord.
The Tribunal held that, despite the sharing of facilities, the RTA was not excluded.
The tenant’s room comprised “premises” for the purpose of the RTA: “That the premises did not have their own toilet and washing facilities is not...fatal to their [sic] being “premises” because the definition of “facilities” in the Act appears to envisage a situation where other facilities are to be provided to the tenant by the landlord “for the use and enjoyment of the tenant, otherwise than as a part of the premises that are the subject of the agreement”, such as toilet and washing facilities...”.
These decisions were decided on their own facts. But they show that the Tribunal is sometimes required to assess whether the extent of shared facilities or spaces means the living arrangements are to be properly characterised as a tenancy, or as a flat share (or boarding) arrangement. Analysis
In the circumstances of this case and the living arrangements as outlined by both parties at the hearing, I find that Mr Lu and Mrs Zhou meet the definition of a landlord, in that they leased residential premises to Ms Ma, Ms Li and Mr Cai in consideration of rent.
Ms Ma, Ms Li and Mr Cai fall within the definition of being tenants, given that they are the grantee of residential premises. Ms Ma, Ms Li and Mr Cai has the exclusive right to occupy the self-contained first floor of the house on the basis of the payment of rent. No other person occupied the self-contained first floor of the house they were entitled to exclusively occupy.
There was a written fixed term flat sharing agreement, and the landlords say the parties intended this to be a flat sharing arrangement and that is the reason for the low rent charged and all the chattels and furnishing provided to the tenants. The parties’ intent is not determinative of the nature of the relationship, although it is one of the factors I can take into account when determining the true nature of the relationship.
I note that in a true flat sharing arrangement, it is common for each flatmate to sign an individual flat sharing agreement which describes the bedroom they have exclusive occupation of and describes all the common/shared facilities they will be expected to share with other occupants of the house. It is also common for these types of flat sharing agreements to note that the owners also occupy the house and that the s5(1)(n) of the RTA exemption applies to the flat sharing situation the flatmate is signing up to and that it is not a boarding house. It would also normally set out the rules of the house set down by the owners. In this situation, the flat sharing agreement is set out like a basic and scant fixed term tenancy agreement that appears to afford exclusive rights to occupy the first floor by the three named tenants. It does not only afford exclusive access to set bedrooms and a shared bathroom and makes no mention of sharing the kitchen, lounge or any other common area with the owners. The tenants claim they would not have taken the flat if they had to share it with the owners. They were under the reasonable belief they were renting the entire first floor. This belief they say was born out by the fact they did have exclusive occupation of the first floor, although a few times the male landlord chose to access the premise unlawfully, which is one of their claims.
The evidence establishing a flatmate arrangement falls well short. The difference between a flatmate and a tenant is that a tenant obtains a right to occupy the premises (in this case, the first floor of the house) rented from the landlords. A flatmate resides in the premises by way of a licence from either the owner, or a head tenant who would have a contractual relationship with the landlords. This is not a case where Ms Ma, Ms Li and Mr Cai were only residing in self-contained first floor of the house by way of licence. The evidence the tenants have provided prove on the balance of probabilities that they had exclusive rights to occupy the self-contained first floor of the house.
The floor plan of the house shows both the ground floor, and the first floor are largely self-contained. The ground floor has the main laundry facilities, and the first floor has the main kitchen. Other than that, the ground floor has two bedrooms, a kitchenette, a lounge/dining area and its own bathroom. The first floor has its own washing machine, purchased by the tenants, so their level of the house was completely self-contained.
The landlords argued the kitchenette on the ground floor is no more than a coffee station. During the case management conference today, the landlords showed the Tribunal the kitchenette area, which is large enough to hold a microwave, free standing wok or cooktop, rice cooker and/or small benchtop oven. It is currently set up as a coffee station. However, there were no tenants or flatmates present in the house at present. The current ones are away overseas, and the landlords are making use of the entire house.
The tenants claim that during their tenancy, the landlords did not cook much at home, occasionally invited them for a meal downstairs that was cooked downstairs or brought in from their restaurant, and that the landlords mostly ate at their restaurant each day. The tenants were adamant that the landlords did not cook in the first-floor kitchen and would not have been permitted to do so as this was part of the premise the tenants paid rent to exclusively occupy.
The landlords disagreed and stated they did not cook upstairs, but they could have if they had wanted to and that they had exclusive rights to go anywhere in the entire house when they chose and could move flatmates into different rooms at will. They also stated they set all the rules for the house, like everyone having to stop all noise by 11pm each night so as not to disturb one another, having to pay an additional $20.00 per week per flatmate if they used a heater and telling flatmates which room they could use and when. Further, they confirmed they did primarily eat at the restaurant each day and seldom prepared meals at home.
Additionally, the landlords say that the door between the ground floor stairwell and first level of the house was never locked and that the flatmates and themselves could come and go between levels as hey wished. They also stated that all persons living in the house had the codes to the locks on the upstairs entrance doors and the downstairs entrance doors, so could enter the house on any level through those doors if they wanted to.
The tenants confirmed the door between the two separate dwellings was locked and the landlords confirmed they were the only ones that could unlock that internal stairwell door. The tenants also confirmed that they did all have the external access codes to all the doors, but no one would enter the others separate area of the house, without obtaining consent from the parties that lived on that level of the house.
The landlords did not claim they entered the first floor without the consent of the tenants, only that they could have if they had wanted too. They also continually insisted the stairwell door was never locked.
The tenants evidence included a witness statement from Mr Wenhui Lu, made to the New Zealand Police after an incident between Ms Ma and Mr Cai in December 2025. This witness statement clearly states: “Our house has two stories. My wife and I live downstairs, and the three of them live upstairs. The upstairs and downstairs have separate entrances. The upstairs entrance is accessed via an outdoor staircase and can be locked. There is no internal access between the upstairs and downstairs. The upstairs front door has a keypad lock, and all three of them know the code. The upstairs area has three bedrooms and one living room, with each of them occupying one bedroom. The first room on the right side of the hallway is Cai’s room, next to his girlfriend Li’s room. The room at the end of the hallway is Ma’s room. They share one common bathroom. The layout downstairs is the same: three bedrooms and one living room”.
This statement suggests the internal door between the floors is locked off and inaccessible to the tenants and that there are two comparable self-contained households, one on each floor. The landlords stated that English is their second language and that they may have not clearly explained the house to the Police. They also stated the Police are amending this statement as it is incorrect. No evidence was produced to substantiate these claims.
In Musson v Dobrisek & Ors DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006-032-36, 5 May 2006, Judge Broadmore considered the definition of a flatmate. The court held that: “...the use of the word “flatmate” does not in itself define the legal relationship between flatmate and landlord. “By ‘flatmate’ I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, 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.”
There was no conclusive evidence the landlords had access to shared or common areas (including cooking) in the tenants first floor household or that the landlords had a right to occupy first floor areas used by the tenants. There was no evidence of a co-operative arrangement between the parties’ sharing facilities in this case, such that a flatting arrangement might exist. The landlords produced some WeChat messages that prove the tenants’ and the owners did have some interaction and occasionally shared some time together, but they lived independently.
The evidence supports a finding that the tenants were renting a separate self- contained unit with cooking, lounge, dining and bathroom facilities.
As noted above, even where there is some shared use of facilities, such as a occasional use of a kitchen with the consent of the occupants, the RTA may still apply to two largely self-contained households. This is because a tenancy agreement can include facilities provided for the nonexclusive use of the tenants.
In Holler & Rouse v Osaki [2016] NZCA 130, the Court of Appeal stated that the RTA is “consumer protection legislation”. Where there is any uncertainty as to whether any particular arrangement falls within the scope of the RTA, consideration of this consumer protection aspect of the RTA ought to weigh in favour of bringing the arrangement under the umbrella of the Act and giving the tenant (and the landlord) access to the remedies that the Tenancy Tribunal can provide.
The next matter to consider is whether or not section 5(1)(n) RTA operates to exclude the agreement from the operation of the RTA.
The District Court in Musson v Dobrisek DC Lower Hutt, CIV- 2006-032-36, 5 May 2006, held that the correct question for the Tribunal to answer when considering section 5(1)(n) RTA is: “Is the principal use of these premises as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owners’ family.”
If the house as a whole was the relevant “premises” then I would easily conclude that section 5(1)(n) applied in this case. However, I find that is not the case, rather I consider that the self-contained first floor of the house is a separate premises to the ground floor of the house.
The Court has previously determined in Kahi v Lucus HC Auckland, 81/96, 23 September 1996 and Harding v Schellevis & Ors that there can be a separate premises within a larger premises. I note the definition of premises in section 2(1) includes “any part of any premises.” I also adopt the reasoning of the High Court in Harding v Schellevis & Ors that “premises” includes “a part of a building.”
While this was physically one building, there were two separate and distinct household units within that building. The tenants had their own separate premises (with its own separate entrance and exit) that was not shared with the landlords. They did not utilise the ground floor where the landlords were living. The house as a whole was not shared, and there was a clear separation.
The tenants had their own separate living space that the landlords should have understood they could not enter without consent. The evidence shows the tenants treated the landlords as privately occupying the ground floor and did not enter this area without consent or invitation. There were 2 separate premises, each with exclusive possession, rather than a sharing of the house and its facilities.
Accordingly, the relevant “premises” for the purposes of section 5(1)(n) is the self- contained unit only. The question, then, is whether the self-contained unit was used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.
It is clear that the self-contained first floor was not used principally as a place of residence for Mr Lu and Mrs Zhou as the landlords or a member of the landlords’ family.
I find that there was a residential tenancy of the self-contained first floor of the house to which the RTA applies. This was not a flatmate sharing arrangement. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is not excluded by section 5(1)(n) RTA.
That said, I am mindful that this arrangement is not what Mr Lu and Mrs Zhou anticipated at the time of agreeing to rent the first-floor facilities to three international students and the finding that this is a residential tenancy will have significant flow on effects for both parties. The parties’ claims
The tenants seek orders for compensation, general damages and/or exemplary damages for: a. Failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within 23 working days from receiving it (refer to s19 and Schedule 1A of the RTA); b. Failure to keep business records (Refer to s 30(2)(a) and Schedule 1A of the RTA); c. Failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, (Refer to s45(1)(b) and Schedule 1A of the RTA) specifically: i. The balcony door lock; and ii. The bathroom window. It is of note the tenants may add other repair and maintenance issues to this list when filing their evidence. d. Breach of healthy homes standards (Refer to s45(1)(bb) and Schedule 1A of the RTA), specifically: i. Heating; ii. Moisture and drainage; iii. Insulation e. Breach of quiet enjoyment (Refer to s38 and Schedule 1A of the RTA); f. Unlawful entry by the landlords (Refer to s48 and Schedule 1A of the RTA); g. Breach of Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019, (Refer to s45(1)(ba) and Schedule 1A of the RTA); h. Landlord acting to terminate tenancy without grounds (Refer to s60AA and Schedule 1A of the RTA); i. Unlawful disposal of goods (Refer to s62 of the RTA); j. Failure to provide the statutorily required terms in the tenancy agreement (Refer to s13 and 13A and Schedule 1A of the RTA);
The landlords oppose all the tenant’s claims.
The landlords sent an email to the Tribunal that states they intend to file a cross application seeking orders for: a. Rent arrears of $4,750.00; b. Compensation for damages as follows: i. Floor repair $7,500.00; ii. Wall and ceiling repair $1,000.00; iii. Repainting $2,000.00; and iv. Bathroom repair $1,500.00; c. Cleaning and rubbish removal costs $1,200.00. d. Reimbursement of the application fee if the landlord is wholly or substantially successful in its claims.
The tenants have not confirmed if they oppose some or all the landlords’ claims.
A full day hearing is required for evidence, submissions, and decision.
Directions are made above.
The parties will be notified in writing by Tenancy Services of the date and time of the next hearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5460954 — Rent arrears at 136 Sycamore Drive, Sunnynook, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5460954 — Rent arrears at 136 Sycamore Drive, Sunnynook, Auckland 0620

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