What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5474007 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of [The tenant/s]’s and [The landlord/s]’s

How much money was awarded in case 5474007?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5474007?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5474007?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13565775-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5474007 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of [The tenant/s]’s and [The landlord/s]’s

How much money was awarded in case 5474007?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5474007?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5474007?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13565775-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5474007 — Exemplary damages

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of [The tenant/s]’s and [The landlord/s]’s names and all identifying details including the address of the premises.
By way of declaration, the agreement between the parties is not a residential tenancy it is therefore not subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear and consider the application. The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held remotely by video.
[The tenant/s] has filed a claim with the Tenancy Tribunal to set aside the termination notice on the ground that it is retaliatory, for compensation and exemplary damages, and for orders that [The landlord/s] cease harassing [The tenant/s], and remove their personal belongings.
However there is a preliminary issue as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear [The tenant/s]’s claim which needs to be resolved before the substantive claim made by the applicant can be heard. Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental and must be decided before the Tribunal can determine any matters claimed.
[The landlord/s] claim that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s claim by virtue of section 5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute between a landlord and a tenant that relates to a residential tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies 1 . The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine disputes between parties other than those in a landlord and tenant relationship.
The key issue here is whether the arrangement between the parties is a residential tenancy under the RTA.
[The tenant/s], his partner and his daughter have lived in the 4 bedroomed house at the property for nearly 6 years. There is a sleepout in the back yard which was unoccupied until [Landlord 1] moved in around 1-2 years ago 2 .
[The landlord/s] own the house jointly. They were married but have separated. [The tenant/s]’s partner is [The landlord/s]’s daughter.
The sleepout is not self-contained. [Landlord 1] enters the house to use the kitchen, bathroom, lounge and laundry facilities. She enters the house whenever she wants, and has until recently has spent most nights watching television inside with her daughter. [Landlord 1] has chosen to spend less time in the house since a relationship breakdown occurred between her and [The tenant/s].
[The tenant/s] signed an agreement with [Landlord 1] on 18 November 2025, which is headed: “Rental Agreement between [Landlord 1] and [The tenant/s] of [premises address]”
The agreement records: The rental period will commence on the 18 th of November 2025 and [The tenant/s] will pay $300NZD weekly via direct debit to [Landlord 1]’s bank account. Rental fee is not inclusive of power, internet or food. Rental can be reviewed by consent of both parties 6 months from commencement.
Prior to this agreement the applicant had a verbal arrangement with [Landlord 2] to live in the house. The arrangement changed to an arrangement with [Landlord 1] as she had intended to purchase [Landlord 2]’s share of the premises 3 . 1 See section 77, RTA 2 The length of time [Landlord 1] has lived in the sleepout was not agreed by the parties. [The tenant/s] believes it was around 1 year, while [Landlord 1] says she has been living there for around 2 years. 3 The change in ownership of the premises has not yet occurred. [Landlord 1] says the written agreement was made with the application for financing/bank purposes.
Section 2 of the RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the tenancy agreement. A tenant is someone who is granted a tenancy by the landlord, rents the premises directly from the landlord and who usually has a written tenancy agreement which records they are a tenant.
Section 5 RTA details exclusions to the RTA when a tenant/landlord relationship exists. Section 5(1)(n) specifically excludes arrangements where the premises are being used by the landlord, or a member of the landlord or owner’s family, principally as their place of residence.
‘’Member of the landlord’s or owner’s family” is defined under s 2 as including any person who is related to the landlord or owner by blood, by or through marriage, a civil union, or a de facto relationship.
As the parties to this arrangement are family, the arrangement is excluded as a residential tenancy under section 5 (1)(n) and the RTA does not apply unless there is clear evidence that all parties had agreed the RTA applied to the arrangement 4 . That is not the case here.
[The tenant/s] considers the agreement he has with [Landlord 1] is a tenancy agreement under the RTA as it refers to a ‘rental agreement’, and to [Landlord 1] as a ‘landlord’ and him as a ‘tenant’. He also raised that the 42 day termination notice given to him was a notice under the RTA.
The evidence presented does not persuade me that the parties under the agreement with [Landlord 1] intended the arrangement to be a tenancy to which the provisions of the RTA applied. For that to be the case I would expect the parties to have discussed that and for the written agreement to include reference/s to the RTA. However that is not the case.
‘Landlord’, ‘tenant’ and ‘rental agreement’ are general words which are not just applicable to RTA tenancy agreements. I also note: a. the written agreement enables the rent to be reviewed 6 months after the commencement of the arrangement as long as both parties consent. This is contrary to the provisions of the RTA; b. the termination notice does not refer to the RTA.
I am satisfied this is an arrangement made between family and is excluded by the RTA provisions. As the RTA does not apply to this arrangement, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the applicant’s claim.
For this reason [The tenant/s]’s claim is dismissed. 4 See section 8, RTA
Suppression: The Tribunal on its own initiative orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties. In doing so I have had regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest and do not consider there is any public interest in having the names of the parties published.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of [The tenant/s]’s and [The landlord/s]’s names and all identifying details including the address of the premises.
By way of declaration, the agreement between the parties is not a residential tenancy it is therefore not subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear and consider the application. The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held remotely by video.
[The tenant/s] has filed a claim with the Tenancy Tribunal to set aside the termination notice on the ground that it is retaliatory, for compensation and exemplary damages, and for orders that [The landlord/s] cease harassing [The tenant/s], and remove their personal belongings.
However there is a preliminary issue as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear [The tenant/s]’s claim which needs to be resolved before the substantive claim made by the applicant can be heard. Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental and must be decided before the Tribunal can determine any matters claimed.
[The landlord/s] claim that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s claim by virtue of section 5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute between a landlord and a tenant that relates to a residential tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies 1 . The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine disputes between parties other than those in a landlord and tenant relationship.
The key issue here is whether the arrangement between the parties is a residential tenancy under the RTA.
[The tenant/s], his partner and his daughter have lived in the 4 bedroomed house at the property for nearly 6 years. There is a sleepout in the back yard which was unoccupied until [Landlord 1] moved in around 1-2 years ago 2 .
[The landlord/s] own the house jointly. They were married but have separated. [The tenant/s]’s partner is [The landlord/s]’s daughter.
The sleepout is not self-contained. [Landlord 1] enters the house to use the kitchen, bathroom, lounge and laundry facilities. She enters the house whenever she wants, and has until recently has spent most nights watching television inside with her daughter. [Landlord 1] has chosen to spend less time in the house since a relationship breakdown occurred between her and [The tenant/s].
[The tenant/s] signed an agreement with [Landlord 1] on 18 November 2025, which is headed: “Rental Agreement between [Landlord 1] and [The tenant/s] of [premises address]”
The agreement records: The rental period will commence on the 18 th of November 2025 and [The tenant/s] will pay $300NZD weekly via direct debit to [Landlord 1]’s bank account. Rental fee is not inclusive of power, internet or food. Rental can be reviewed by consent of both parties 6 months from commencement.
Prior to this agreement the applicant had a verbal arrangement with [Landlord 2] to live in the house. The arrangement changed to an arrangement with [Landlord 1] as she had intended to purchase [Landlord 2]’s share of the premises 3 . 1 See section 77, RTA 2 The length of time [Landlord 1] has lived in the sleepout was not agreed by the parties. [The tenant/s] believes it was around 1 year, while [Landlord 1] says she has been living there for around 2 years. 3 The change in ownership of the premises has not yet occurred. [Landlord 1] says the written agreement was made with the application for financing/bank purposes.
Section 2 of the RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the tenancy agreement. A tenant is someone who is granted a tenancy by the landlord, rents the premises directly from the landlord and who usually has a written tenancy agreement which records they are a tenant.
Section 5 RTA details exclusions to the RTA when a tenant/landlord relationship exists. Section 5(1)(n) specifically excludes arrangements where the premises are being used by the landlord, or a member of the landlord or owner’s family, principally as their place of residence.
‘’Member of the landlord’s or owner’s family” is defined under s 2 as including any person who is related to the landlord or owner by blood, by or through marriage, a civil union, or a de facto relationship.
As the parties to this arrangement are family, the arrangement is excluded as a residential tenancy under section 5 (1)(n) and the RTA does not apply unless there is clear evidence that all parties had agreed the RTA applied to the arrangement 4 . That is not the case here.
[The tenant/s] considers the agreement he has with [Landlord 1] is a tenancy agreement under the RTA as it refers to a ‘rental agreement’, and to [Landlord 1] as a ‘landlord’ and him as a ‘tenant’. He also raised that the 42 day termination notice given to him was a notice under the RTA.
The evidence presented does not persuade me that the parties under the agreement with [Landlord 1] intended the arrangement to be a tenancy to which the provisions of the RTA applied. For that to be the case I would expect the parties to have discussed that and for the written agreement to include reference/s to the RTA. However that is not the case.
‘Landlord’, ‘tenant’ and ‘rental agreement’ are general words which are not just applicable to RTA tenancy agreements. I also note: a. the written agreement enables the rent to be reviewed 6 months after the commencement of the arrangement as long as both parties consent. This is contrary to the provisions of the RTA; b. the termination notice does not refer to the RTA.
I am satisfied this is an arrangement made between family and is excluded by the RTA provisions. As the RTA does not apply to this arrangement, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the applicant’s claim.
For this reason [The tenant/s]’s claim is dismissed. 4 See section 8, RTA
Suppression: The Tribunal on its own initiative orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties. In doing so I have had regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest and do not consider there is any public interest in having the names of the parties published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5474007 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5474007 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions