What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5484808 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 5484808?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5484808?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5484808?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14025796-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5484808 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 5484808?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5484808?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5484808?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14025796-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Koropa Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5484808 — Boarding House

Order

The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Ms Wang and Mr Hao attended the hearing which took place by videoconference. There was no appearance of Mr Yu.
The applicant, Ms Wang, has applied for bond refund and compensation against her landlord Mr Hao and her co tenant Mr Yu.
The matter has been set down for hearing to consider jurisdiction.

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear this matter?

The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute that exists between a landlord and a tenant and relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies. See section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
In considering whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction I must ask: What was the nature of the relationship between the parties? Were they in a landlord/tenant relationship?

If the relationship is a boarding relationship was this a boarding house?

If not is there an exclusion under section 5(1)(n) Residential Tenancies Act 1986?

Were the parties in a landlord/tenant relationship?

I have carefully considered the evidence of both parties and find that the parties are not in landlord/tenant relationship for the following reasons: (a)There is no written tenancy agreement between the parties. (b)The parties agreed that a room was advertised for rent living with a family. Ms Wang stated that the advertisement was on a Chinese app and was for a flatmate. (c)Ms Wang had a private room and bathroom at the premises and the rest of the premises was shared with the owner and his wife, two children and mother. (d)Ms Wang moved into the premises in May 2024 and paid a bond of $380 and made weekly payments of $190 to Mr Hao. (e)The premises are owned by Mr Hao and the room and the whole house was furnished by his family. (f)Mr Hao moved to work in Australia in early 2026. In March 2026 another occupant moved to live in the premises and soon afterwards Mr Hao’s wife and children also went to Australia. Mr Hao’s mother remained living in the family home and his sister stayed from time to time. The family’s furniture remains in the home and in their bedroom which is used by Mr Hao when he is in New Zealand. (g)Ms Wang described a shared living arrangement and stated that she took Mr Hao’s mother for walks and to the supermarket. (h)The parties referred to disputes about use of dishwasher liquid and milk which also indicates the shared nature of their living. (i)Ms Wang’s dispute is largely with the new flatmate as she stated that he was noisy and broke one of her cooking appliances. (j)I find on the balance of probabilities that it is more likely than not that the relationship between Mr Hao and Ms Wang was not landlord/tenant but that of an owner and boarder relationship. (k)I find on the balance of probabilities that the relationship between Ms Wang and Mr Yu was of co boarders/flatmates. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with disputes between boarders or flatmates.

Are these premises a boarding house?

A boarding house is defined in section 66B of the RTA as a residential tenancy containing 1 or more boarding rooms along with communal facilities and occupied or intended to be occupied by at least 6 tenants at any one time. A boarding house tenancy is a tenancy that is intended to, or does in fact, last for 28 days or more and the tenant is granted exclusive rights to occupy particular sleeping quarters in the boarding house, and is granted shared use of facilities of the boarding house.
The premises were initially occupied by the owner and family and one tenant/boarder upstairs. Ms Wang stated that there were also two people living downstairs but no evidence of the nature of that situation was provided.
In March 2026 a second person moved in to rent a room upstairs.
There were therefore two people renting upstairs and two downstairs. Therefore, the maximum tenants during Ms Wang’s occupation was four.
Ms Wang claimed that Mr Hao’s mother was a tenant but this was denied by Mr Hao and no evidence of this was provided.
In any event there is no evidence that the premises were intended to by occupied by at least 6 tenants at any one time.
Therefore, I find that the premises are not a boarding house. Are these premises excluded by section 5(1)(n) RTA?
Section 5 of the Act states that it does not apply in certain cases; one of these is 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. See section 5(1)(n) RTA.
There is no dispute that these premises were the respondent’s family home and principally his family’s place of residence until early 2026 and then remained principally the place of residence of his mother.
The parties have not entered into a signed agreement and therefore have not contracted back in to the RTA.
Therefore, I find that this is excluded by section 5(1)(n) RTA. There is no jurisdiction to hear this claim and the matter is dismissed. Suppression
The applicant is seeking suppression of identifying details in any publication of this order. If a party has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. Section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The applicant has not been successful in these proceedings, therefore, the application for name suppression is declined.

Reasons

Ms Wang and Mr Hao attended the hearing which took place by videoconference. There was no appearance of Mr Yu.

The applicant, Ms Wang, has applied for bond refund and compensation against her landlord Mr Hao and her co tenant Mr Yu.

The matter has been set down for hearing to consider jurisdiction.

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear this matter?

The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute that exists between a landlord and a tenant and relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies. See section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

In considering whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction I must ask: What was the nature of the relationship between the parties? Were they in a landlord/tenant relationship?

If the relationship is a boarding relationship was this a boarding house?

If not is there an exclusion under section 5(1)(n) Residential Tenancies Act 1986?

Were the parties in a landlord/tenant relationship?

I have carefully considered the evidence of both parties and find that the parties are not in landlord/tenant relationship for the following reasons: (a)There is no written tenancy agreement between the parties. (b)The parties agreed that a room was advertised for rent living with a family. Ms Wang stated that the advertisement was on a Chinese app and was for a flatmate. (c)Ms Wang had a private room and bathroom at the premises and the rest of the premises was shared with the owner and his wife, two children and mother. (d)Ms Wang moved into the premises in May 2024 and paid a bond of $380 and made weekly payments of $190 to Mr Hao. (e)The premises are owned by Mr Hao and the room and the whole house was furnished by his family. (f)Mr Hao moved to work in Australia in early 2026. In March 2026 another occupant moved to live in the premises and soon afterwards Mr Hao’s wife and children also went to Australia. Mr Hao’s mother remained living in the family home and his sister stayed from time to time. The family’s furniture remains in the home and in their bedroom which is used by Mr Hao when he is in New Zealand. (g)Ms Wang described a shared living arrangement and stated that she took Mr Hao’s mother for walks and to the supermarket. (h)The parties referred to disputes about use of dishwasher liquid and milk which also indicates the shared nature of their living. (i)Ms Wang’s dispute is largely with the new flatmate as she stated that he was noisy and broke one of her cooking appliances. (j)I find on the balance of probabilities that it is more likely than not that the relationship between Mr Hao and Ms Wang was not landlord/tenant but that of an owner and boarder relationship. (k)I find on the balance of probabilities that the relationship between Ms Wang and Mr Yu was of co boarders/flatmates. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with disputes between boarders or flatmates.

Are these premises a boarding house?

A boarding house is defined in section 66B of the RTA as a residential tenancy containing 1 or more boarding rooms along with communal facilities and occupied or intended to be occupied by at least 6 tenants at any one time. A boarding house tenancy is a tenancy that is intended to, or does in fact, last for 28 days or more and the tenant is granted exclusive rights to occupy particular sleeping quarters in the boarding house, and is granted shared use of facilities of the boarding house.

The premises were initially occupied by the owner and family and one tenant/boarder upstairs. Ms Wang stated that there were also two people living downstairs but no evidence of the nature of that situation was provided.

In March 2026 a second person moved in to rent a room upstairs.

There were therefore two people renting upstairs and two downstairs. Therefore, the maximum tenants during Ms Wang’s occupation was four.

Ms Wang claimed that Mr Hao’s mother was a tenant but this was denied by Mr Hao and no evidence of this was provided.

In any event there is no evidence that the premises were intended to by occupied by at least 6 tenants at any one time.

Therefore, I find that the premises are not a boarding house. Are these premises excluded by section 5(1)(n) RTA?

Section 5 of the Act states that it does not apply in certain cases; one of these is 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. See section 5(1)(n) RTA.

There is no dispute that these premises were the respondent’s family home and principally his family’s place of residence until early 2026 and then remained principally the place of residence of his mother.

The parties have not entered into a signed agreement and therefore have not contracted back in to the RTA.

Therefore, I find that this is excluded by section 5(1)(n) RTA. There is no jurisdiction to hear this claim and the matter is dismissed. Suppression

The applicant is seeking suppression of identifying details in any publication of this order. If a party has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. Section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The applicant has not been successful in these proceedings, therefore, the application for name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5484808 — Boarding House at 20 Koropa Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5484808 — Boarding House at 20 Koropa Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear this matter?

If the relationship is a boarding relationship was this a boarding house?

Were the parties in a landlord/tenant relationship?

Are these premises a boarding house?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear this matter?

If the relationship is a boarding relationship was this a boarding house?

Were the parties in a landlord/tenant relationship?

Are these premises a boarding house?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.