What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5476990 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5476990?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5476990?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5476990?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13789948-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5476990 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5476990?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5476990?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5476990?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13789948-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

19 Roslyn Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5476990 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [Tenant/Landlord] name and identifying details.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hearing this claim. The landlord’s claim is therefore dismissed.

Reasons

The owner attended the hearing, the tenant and property manager did not attend.
The Tribunal has sent a notice of hearing to the “tenant” and followed up with text messages confirming the hearing date and time. The property manager, Mr Dai is aware of the date and time of hearing as the mobile phone number he provided for the “tenant” was answered by him previously. This was the mobile number the Tribunal sent messages to for the tenant.
The Tribunal rang the property manager twice on his mobile number, but it went unanswered.
I am proceeding with the hearing in the absence of the property manager and the “tenant”. 5476990 2 Background:
The owner met Mr Kai Dai (AKA Ken) in August 2025 through a personal friend. Mr Dai was a property manager for Idea Home Property Management Limited (IHPM). IHPM is registered on the Company’s Register with the sole director being Shu Ting Yu. Shu Ting Yu is Mr Dai’s wife.
On 25th August 2025 the owner asked Mr Dai if he could manage her property at 19 Roslyn Road, Mount Wellington and find a long-term tenant. This conversation occurred over the phone. On 5 September 2025 Mr Dai contacted the owner and advised that he had obtained a long-term tenant, Ms [The tenant/s] and her young daughter.
The owner confirms that she did not sign an agency contract with Mr Dai and/or IHPM nor did she receive a copy of the tenancy agreement until months later.
The Tribunal has received a copy of an alleged 12-month fixed term Tenancy Agreement between a [The tenant/s] and IHPM dated 15 September 2025.
The Tenancy agreement states the contact person is Mr Dai and provides a mobile number of 0225841156 and an email address of ken@ideahome.co.nz
There are no details for the purported tenant other than a name and an email address, such as emergency contact person, drivers’ licence or passport identification. The property manager’s signature simply has “ken” of Idea Home Property Management Ltd acting as agent for and on behalf of the landlord Zhong Family Trust Trustee Limited.
The tenancy agreement claims that the tenant paid a bond of $2400.00. The owner has confirmed with tenancy services and the bond centre that there has never been a bond lodged for this tenancy. The tenancy was to have commenced on 15 September 2025.
The owner was contacted by a neighbour of the property at 1.00am on 1 October 2025, advising that there were 20 plus people at the property and that they were making loud noises and smoking and drinking.
The owner tried to contact the Mr Dai to no avail, so she went to the property herself the next morning. When the owner arrived at the property, she found the property in a poor state with blood all over the place and damage. The police attended and it was found that the property was listed on “Air BnB”.
The owner took possession of the property and changed the locks on 11 November 2025. Mr Dai has denied being the property manager at the time the tenancy agreement was signed on 15 September 2025, despite the agreement stating that he was acting as an agent of the owner. This information was given at a Disputes Tribunal hearing on 4 March 2026.
The Tribunal was provided with numerous advertisements from the air bnb website for the property during the alleged “tenancy” to [The tenant/s]. The person mailto:ken@ideahome.co.nz 5476990 3 responsible for the listing was Shu Ting Yu, Mr Dai’s wife and the sole director of IHPM.
It is clear that there was no tenancy between the owner and /or IHPM and [The tenant/s]. Mr Dai and Ms Yu had used this property to advertise on air bnb and obtain the money from the listings. Mr Dai paid the owner $2704.15 between 15 September 2025 and 9 November 2025. The total amount of rent that would have been due under the tenancy agreement was $5100.00.
This is a landlord/owners application seeking rent arrears, water bills, compensation for damages to the property and exemplary damages.
The primary issue that I must determine is the jurisdiction of the tenancy tribunal to hear this claim.
The owner has made a claim before the Disputes Tribunal (DT) on 4 March 2026. The DT found that the Tenancy Tribunal has originating jurisdiction to determine all residential tenancy disputes. Furthermore, that the DT cannot hear and determine such a claim without an Order from the Tenancy Tribunal stating it does not have jurisdiction to deal with the claim.
The owner filed a rehearing application and on 8 June 2026 the DT referee reiterated that the applicant could refile her claim against Mr Dai, the property manager in the DT once the Tenancy Tribunal has made its findings on jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal
The Tenancy Tribunal’s jurisdiction is set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The Tribunal can only determine disputes that arise between landlords and tenants (or guarantors of tenants) relating to tenancies to which the Act applies.
The Tribunal cannot hear claims involving third parties who are not landlords or tenants under the relevant tenancy agreement. The Tribunal cannot deal with matters outside the scope of the RTA
In Ziki Investments (Properties) Limited v McDonald1 the High Court confirmed that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to disputes between landlords and tenants, and that it must apply the general principles of law relating to the matter but is not bound by strict legal forms or technicalities.
Fava v Zaghloul2 the High Court confirmed that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider claims under the Fair-Trading Act 1986. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is strictly limited to matters arising under the RTA. 1 Ziki Investments (Properties) Limited v McDonald HC AK CIV 2008-404-0038 2 Fava v Zagloul (CIV 2005-404-006818 28 April 2006. 5476990 4
Under s2(1) of the RTA a landlord is defined as a grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of a residential premises, and a tenant as the grantee of the tenancy.
In this case, the evidence shows that the property manager and/or his wife, the director of IMPM, advertised and let the property as an Airbnb, rather than entering into a fixed term residential tenancy as the owner believed. This arrangement was for short-term accommodation, and the property management company was taking the bookings and payments for these listings. There is no evidence of a residential tenancy agreement between the parties as defined by the RTA.
As there is no tenancy agreement or landlord-tenant relationship within the meaning of the RTA, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this dispute. This position is consistent with s77(1) RTA and the definitions section s2(1) of the RTA.
The Tribunal can only hear claims arising out of a residential tenancy and not arrangements for short term accommodation such as Airbnb.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [Tenant/Landlord] name and identifying details.
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hearing this claim. The landlord’s claim is therefore dismissed.

Reasons

The owner attended the hearing, the tenant and property manager did not attend.
The Tribunal has sent a notice of hearing to the “tenant” and followed up with text messages confirming the hearing date and time. The property manager, Mr Dai is aware of the date and time of hearing as the mobile phone number he provided for the “tenant” was answered by him previously. This was the mobile number the Tribunal sent messages to for the tenant.
The Tribunal rang the property manager twice on his mobile number, but it went unanswered.
I am proceeding with the hearing in the absence of the property manager and the “tenant”. 5476990 2 Background:
The owner met Mr Kai Dai (AKA Ken) in August 2025 through a personal friend. Mr Dai was a property manager for Idea Home Property Management Limited (IHPM). IHPM is registered on the Company’s Register with the sole director being Shu Ting Yu. Shu Ting Yu is Mr Dai’s wife.
On 25th August 2025 the owner asked Mr Dai if he could manage her property at 19 Roslyn Road, Mount Wellington and find a long-term tenant. This conversation occurred over the phone. On 5 September 2025 Mr Dai contacted the owner and advised that he had obtained a long-term tenant, Ms [The tenant/s] and her young daughter.
The owner confirms that she did not sign an agency contract with Mr Dai and/or IHPM nor did she receive a copy of the tenancy agreement until months later.
The Tribunal has received a copy of an alleged 12-month fixed term Tenancy Agreement between a [The tenant/s] and IHPM dated 15 September 2025.
The Tenancy agreement states the contact person is Mr Dai and provides a mobile number of 0225841156 and an email address of ken@ideahome.co.nz
There are no details for the purported tenant other than a name and an email address, such as emergency contact person, drivers’ licence or passport identification. The property manager’s signature simply has “ken” of Idea Home Property Management Ltd acting as agent for and on behalf of the landlord Zhong Family Trust Trustee Limited.
The tenancy agreement claims that the tenant paid a bond of $2400.00. The owner has confirmed with tenancy services and the bond centre that there has never been a bond lodged for this tenancy. The tenancy was to have commenced on 15 September 2025.
The owner was contacted by a neighbour of the property at 1.00am on 1 October 2025, advising that there were 20 plus people at the property and that they were making loud noises and smoking and drinking.
The owner tried to contact the Mr Dai to no avail, so she went to the property herself the next morning. When the owner arrived at the property, she found the property in a poor state with blood all over the place and damage. The police attended and it was found that the property was listed on “Air BnB”.
The owner took possession of the property and changed the locks on 11 November 2025. Mr Dai has denied being the property manager at the time the tenancy agreement was signed on 15 September 2025, despite the agreement stating that he was acting as an agent of the owner. This information was given at a Disputes Tribunal hearing on 4 March 2026.
The Tribunal was provided with numerous advertisements from the air bnb website for the property during the alleged “tenancy” to [The tenant/s]. The person mailto:ken@ideahome.co.nz 5476990 3 responsible for the listing was Shu Ting Yu, Mr Dai’s wife and the sole director of IHPM.
It is clear that there was no tenancy between the owner and /or IHPM and [The tenant/s]. Mr Dai and Ms Yu had used this property to advertise on air bnb and obtain the money from the listings. Mr Dai paid the owner $2704.15 between 15 September 2025 and 9 November 2025. The total amount of rent that would have been due under the tenancy agreement was $5100.00.
This is a landlord/owners application seeking rent arrears, water bills, compensation for damages to the property and exemplary damages.
The primary issue that I must determine is the jurisdiction of the tenancy tribunal to hear this claim.
The owner has made a claim before the Disputes Tribunal (DT) on 4 March 2026. The DT found that the Tenancy Tribunal has originating jurisdiction to determine all residential tenancy disputes. Furthermore, that the DT cannot hear and determine such a claim without an Order from the Tenancy Tribunal stating it does not have jurisdiction to deal with the claim.
The owner filed a rehearing application and on 8 June 2026 the DT referee reiterated that the applicant could refile her claim against Mr Dai, the property manager in the DT once the Tenancy Tribunal has made its findings on jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal
The Tenancy Tribunal’s jurisdiction is set out in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The Tribunal can only determine disputes that arise between landlords and tenants (or guarantors of tenants) relating to tenancies to which the Act applies.
The Tribunal cannot hear claims involving third parties who are not landlords or tenants under the relevant tenancy agreement. The Tribunal cannot deal with matters outside the scope of the RTA
In Ziki Investments (Properties) Limited v McDonald1 the High Court confirmed that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to disputes between landlords and tenants, and that it must apply the general principles of law relating to the matter but is not bound by strict legal forms or technicalities.
Fava v Zaghloul2 the High Court confirmed that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider claims under the Fair-Trading Act 1986. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is strictly limited to matters arising under the RTA. 1 Ziki Investments (Properties) Limited v McDonald HC AK CIV 2008-404-0038 2 Fava v Zagloul (CIV 2005-404-006818 28 April 2006. 5476990 4
Under s2(1) of the RTA a landlord is defined as a grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of a residential premises, and a tenant as the grantee of the tenancy.
In this case, the evidence shows that the property manager and/or his wife, the director of IMPM, advertised and let the property as an Airbnb, rather than entering into a fixed term residential tenancy as the owner believed. This arrangement was for short-term accommodation, and the property management company was taking the bookings and payments for these listings. There is no evidence of a residential tenancy agreement between the parties as defined by the RTA.
As there is no tenancy agreement or landlord-tenant relationship within the meaning of the RTA, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this dispute. This position is consistent with s77(1) RTA and the definitions section s2(1) of the RTA.
The Tribunal can only hear claims arising out of a residential tenancy and not arrangements for short term accommodation such as Airbnb.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5476990 — Rent arrears at 19 Roslyn Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5476990 — Rent arrears at 19 Roslyn Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions