What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5477119 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ and hearing participants’ names and identifying details including the

How much money was awarded in case 5477119?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5477119?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5477119?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13708112-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5477119 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ and hearing participants’ names and identifying details including the

How much money was awarded in case 5477119?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5477119?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Healthy homes, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5477119?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13708112-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5477119 — State of repair

Order

The parties’ and hearing participants’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
The claim is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams.
Ms [tenant’s surname] (“the applicant”) was represented by Ms [surname] formerly a Kāinga Ora tenancy manager with 15 years’ experience. Two of Ms [tenant’s surname] sisters also attended in support. A mental health nurse was also present.
Mrs [surname] and Mr [surname], who are trustees for the [Trust’s name] Trust, attended for the Trust. The trust is responsible for administering the land.
Ms [surname] also attended by telephone. She is a trustee of the trust that owns the land and assets that the purported tenancy address is located on.
The matter is before me to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the matter. Background
The factual circumstances are unusual. This is not the Tribunal’s usual fare such as a Grey Lynn (Auckland) residential villa, managed by Barfoot & Thompson for private landlords. The property involved here is on a “Māori Reservation” and it is held in Trust for the benefit of named hapū.
The Trust’s objects include making the land’s eight residential units available to kaumātua who belong to certain hapū identified as tangata whenua. A Māori Land Court outcomes record sheet indicates that on 9 October 1989 the Court issued an order over the land redefining the purposes of the reservation, to include the purpose of “kaumatua housing as a health resort”: 1 [R]edefining the purpose for a Maori Reservation as a place for bathing and for kaumatua housing as a health resort for the hapu of [named hapū]
The Māori Land Court outcomes record sheet records that on 9 May 2024, the Court issued an interim injunction prohibiting the trustees from evicting kaumatua tenants: Grant of interim injunction prohibiting the trustees of the [name of Trust]Trust from (a) evicting the kaumatua tenants of the Reservation; and (b) carrying on activities which are outside of the gazette purposes of the Reservation until the determination of the related application for an inquiry into the administration of the Reservation or Court order.
“Kaumātua tenants” would presumably be tenants that the Trust has vetted and granted a tenancy to, based on the Court’s redefinition of the reservation’s purposes.
The trustees say that prior to the last year or so, the Trust has not functioned for many years because the sole remaining trustee was unable to perform his role. It is only in about the last year that the current trustees have taken control of the trust that it has begun to function again. In the meantime, the Trust’s land and the residential units have been used without formal oversight of a competent trustee.
I accept the trustees’ evidence. The Trust’s affairs are in flux. It has previously been operating only after a fashion. The current trustees want to reorganise the Trust’s affairs. That is going to take time. The Māori Land Court is going to determine an application into inquiry into the administration of the Reservation. The Trust must 1 Supplied by the applicant. Uploaded to the Tribunal’s electronic file on 26 May 2026. consult its stakeholders and consider the legal framework before it can move forward with certainty.
The applicant whakapas to the land. Her father carried out a lot of work on it. However, the applicant’s occupation of the villa occurred organically without the Trust’s specific approval. She moved into the unit as the live-in caregiver for a former Māori Warden of 40 years’ service. That occupant may not have been a properly eligible kaumātua because he “returned to Kawhia”. After that occupant left, the applicant stayed on. She got the Trust’s bank account details from the former occupant and made sporadic payments (which the parties call “rent”) from about December 2023, possibly intending (but failing by a significant margin) to pay the Trust $100.00 per week.
The applicant has not lived at the unit since 14 January 2026 when she went to hospital, where she remains. She wants to leave hospital but does not wish to return to the purported tenancy address. However, she wants the Trust to store her belongings and wishes to claim against the Trust for failing to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards during her stay and for unlawfully evicting her.
On 25 February 2026, the Trust emailed one of the applicant’s sisters that the applicant’s belongings would be removed from unit. The applicant’s sister found “the approach to be curt and aspects to be offensive”.
During the hearing, there was some discussion about whether the parties could resolve the matter by such terms as the Trust forgiving the applicant’s purported debt and the Trust delivering the applicants belongings to a suitable place. However, settlement was not arrived at.
I note in passing that the bank records on file indicate the applicant paid the Trust $3,100.00. If rent or koha was meant to be $100.00 per week for the period 26 December 2023 to 14 January 2026, the applicant would owe the trust $7,628.57. 2 The bank records are probably incomplete. The Trust calculates the “rental” arrears as being $7,400.00. Legal principles – jurisdiction
The long title of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states, among other things, it is a establish a Tribunal to determine disputes between landlords and tenants of residential properties: 2 There is a summary showing the applicant’s debt on file, but it is eligible. An Act to reform and restate the law relating to residential tenancies, to define the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants of residential properties, to establish a tribunal to determine expeditiously disputes arising between such landlords and tenants, to establish a fund in which bonds payable by such tenants are to be held...
The RTA sets out the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the heading “Jurisdiction” at ss 77-
Section 77(1) is the foundational subsection: 77 Jurisdiction of Tribunal (1) The Tribunal has, subject to the Limitation Act 2010, jurisdiction to determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that— (a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time. (Emphasis added)
It follows, for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction to determine a dispute under s 77(1), there must be: a. a dispute must be between a landlord and a tenant (s 77(1)(a)); and b. the RTA must apply to the tenancy (s 77(1)(b)).
In s 2 of RTA “unless the context otherwise requires” the RTA applies the following meanings to tenant and tenancy: 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 agreement... tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent ... (Emphasis added)
If there is a residential tenancy, only the RTA itself permits its exclusion. Section 4 of the RTA provides that: This Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.
Consonant to s 4, s 11 of the RTA provides that an agreement to exclude the Act is “of no effect”. 3 3 There are limited exceptions set out in s 11 that do not apply here.
Section 5 of the RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Under s 5(1), the RTA “shall not apply”: (n) where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be 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... ... (v) if the Māori Trustee has leased a Māori reserve or township land under section 26 of the Māori Reserved Land Act 1955:
Under s 10 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) “Where, in any proceedings before the Tribunal, any party contends that this Act does not apply in respect of any tenancy of any residential premises, it shall be for that party to establish the facts upon which it is contended that this Act does not apply”. Issue for determination
During the hearing, the argument focussed primarily on whether there was a tenancy at all. The Trust maintains it never contracted with the applicant for a tenancy over the premises. The applicant’s occupation of the premises was at the Trust’s sufferance and there were no formal legal relations. The applicant on the other hand argued that there was an implied tenancy because she occupied the premises, and the Trust accepted her rent payments.
Therefore, the issue I decide in this case is: Was there a tenancy agreement?
Following deciding the issue, I make some brief non-binding comments about the RTA that the Trust and its beneficiaries may wish to consider in framing their future affairs.

Was there a tenancy agreement?

Legal principles

The six essential elements for a valid and enforceable contract are offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations, and capacity. 4
An offer must be made with “[s]ufficient certainty as to...the proposed essential terms”. 5 Essential terms for a residential tenancy contract include, the weekly rent, the address, 4 Ian Bassett Contract Law in New Zealand – Lawyers’ Handbook (Southern Cross Publishing, Auckland, 2007 at 3. 5 Ibid. the parties to the contract, commencement date of the tenancy, and the period of the tenancy, the type of the tenancy including whether the tenancy was for a fixed period or was periodic (ongoing but terminable by the tenants giving 28 days’ notice). Discussion
The applicant relies on the fact that the Trust let the tenant remain in the premises and accepted her rent payments. She submits that conduct amounted to acceptance of the pre-existing terms of the previous tenant’s tenancy.
The trustees say the Trust tolerated the applicant’s occupation of the unit and accepted her rent payments, but never agreed to grant her a tenancy of the premises. Indeed, if there had been a residential tenancy to which the RTA applied, the Trust could have applied for immediate termination of the tenancy which were so well in arrears they would have had the right to apply to the Tribunal for immediate termination and possession months earlier based on rent being more than 21 days in arrears.
When the applicant began making weekly payments to the Trust in late 2023, the current trustees had not been appointed. The applicant herself says she got the Trust’s bank account details from the former occupant she was looking after. It follows, aside from the conduct of omitting to intervene in the occupation and accepting payments related to the occupancy, there is no other conduct by the Trust upon which a tenancy can be implied.
If this were a regular situation such as the Grey Lynn villa managed by Barfoot & Thompson and there had been a residential tenancy in place where the original tenant had left and the remaining flatmate started paying the rent, there would be more clarity as to the terms of any tenancy to be implied. If the flatmate continued living in the premises for several years with Barfoots’ knowledge that the original tenant had moved out the Tribunal would likely have little difficulty in finding an implied tenancy agreement existed.
That is not that situation. The terms of the former occupant’s occupancy of the unit are unknown. It is not clear that even he had a contract with the Trust to occupy the unit. His occupation came about when the Trust was not functioning, and its assets were not being actively managed by a competent trustee. The current trustees are dealing with the aftermath of that.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was not an offer by the Trust or the applicant containing sufficient certainty as to the agreement’s essential terms, nor am acceptance of such an offer. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Trust’s trustees did not intend to create legal relations in the nature of a residential tenancy with the applicant for the unit. Conclusion
I find that there was no contract for a tenancy between the parties for the premises. Therefore, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the tenant’s claim.
The applicant’s claim is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
That does not mean the applicant cannot pursue a remedy in a different jurisdiction. The Māori Land Court or the Disputes Tribunal are likely alternative venues.
The Tribunal hopes the parties can nonetheless resolve the substantive issues they have. Brief comments on application of the RTA moving forward
I wish to make some brief non-binding comments about the application of the RTA that the Trust and its beneficiaries may wish to consider in framing their future affairs. This is intended as a “heads-up” to assist the parties and other stakeholders.
The purpose of the Reserve assets is for use “as a health resort”, not just for the purpose ordinary residential housing. However, the Trust may wish to use the units for housing its kaumātua for longer terms. For that to be financially sustainable, the Trust may wish the kaumātua to pay rent. If that were so, the Trust and kaumātua arrangements might fall under the RTA.
If the RTA did apply, the Trust and its tenants would benefit from the RTA and its infrastructure. Tenancy Services provides free advice and a free mediation service. The Tribunal adjudicates on disputes as has been discussed. The RTA has many helpful rules and procedures such as: a. Landlords must repair and maintain the premises to a reasonable state of repair and must comply with the healthy homes standards and smoke alarm regulations. b. Procedures for terminating tenancies such as when rent is 21 days in arrears or on giving 90 days’ notice without cause. c. Landlords must not interfere with tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy. d. Tenants must not interfere with the landlord’s other tenants’ reasonable peace, comfort or privacy. e. Tenants must remove their belongings upon vacating the premises. Landlords must follow certain procedures for dealing with any belongings a tenant leaves behind. f.Rules for terminating tenancies and granting possession and for dealing with tenants’ belongings that they leave behind on vacating the premises. There are also sections of the RTA that deal with who must pay the cost of decontamination of premises where that is required. g. A set level of methamphetamine for contamination to determine whether a premises must be decontaminated.
However, the Trust and stakeholders may want to consider whether s 5(1)(n) of the RTA may disapply the RTA. That paragraph disapplies the RTA if under the tenancy the unit is used: 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...
Importantly for this issue, the Māori Land Court has kaumātua housing as a health resort for “the hapu of [hapū names]”. Under s 2 of the RTA members of the landlord’s family includes “whānau or other culturally recognised family group”. That section provides among other things: member of the landlord’s or owner’s family, in relation to a landlord or an owner, means— (a) any person who is or has been related to the landlord or owner— (i) by blood; or (ii) by or through marriage, a civil union, or a de facto relationship; or (iii) by adoption: (b) any other person who is a member of the landlord’s or owner’s whānau or other culturally recognised family group...
The meaning of legislation must be ascertained from its text and in the light of its purpose and its context. The leading text on statutory interpretation in New Zealand says: 6 Central to the understanding of any statute is its purpose. If the purpose of an Act is clear, its text should if possible be interpreted so as to give effect to that purpose. In New Zealand, there has for over a century been a legislative direction that the purposive approach to interpretation should be used.
The online resource, Te Aka Māori Dictionary defines “hapū” as: kinship group, clan, tribe, subtribe - section of a large kinship group and the primary political unit in traditional Māori society. It consisted of a number of whānau sharing descent from a common ancestor, usually being named after the ancestor, but sometimes from an important event in the group's history. A number of related hapū usually shared adjacent territories forming a looser tribal federation (iwi).
Te Aka defines “whanau” as: extended family, family group, a familiar term of address to a number of people - the primary economic unit of traditional Māori society. In the modern context the term is sometimes used to include friends who may not have any kinship ties to other members.
For the purposes of s 5(1)(n), arguably the “owner” under the terms of the Trust as redefined by the Māori Land Court are the named hapū. The “tenants” are only to be members of the hapū”.
Thus s 5(1)(n) might excluded the tenancy from the RTA. Whether that is so and whether that is desirable are matters for the Trust and stakeholders to consider. Even if s 5(1)(n) does apply, the Trust and tenants can contract back into the RTA by virtue of s 8 of the RTA. Non-publication
In her claim, the tenant sought non-publication.
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order than the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. 7 6 JF Burrows Statue Law in New Zealand (6 th ed, LexisNexis, Wellington, 2021) at 289. Footnotes omitted. 7 RTA s 95A(4).
The hearing raised aspects of the applicant’s private life. It is not necessary in the public interest to identify the applicant. The substance of the issues can be published so the public interest in open justice is not materially affected.
To protect the applicant’s identity. The parties’ and the other hearing participants’ names, and the purported tenancy address are not to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5477119 — State of repair

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5477119 — State of repair

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a tenancy agreement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Was there a tenancy agreement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions