What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5508694 about?

The tribunal order states: The application by the Applicant is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5508694?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5508694?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5508694?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14012755-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5508694 about?

The tribunal order states: The application by the Applicant is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5508694?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5508694?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5508694?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14012755-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

291 Church Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5508694 — Rent arrears

Reasons

The Applicant attended. The Respondent did not appear.

The Applicant has applied for termination, rent arrears, disposal of goods and compensation.

The Applicant submitted that he owned a workshop with adjoining rooms that could be used as offices. He rented one of those rooms to the Respondent for use as an office. The Applicant took possession of the premises on or about 25 August 2025 because the Applicant abandoned the premises approximately two months ago. Although the premises were rented for business purposes, the Applicant saw that the Respondent had begun sleeping there, noting that a couch had been placed in the room. The Applicant sought orders terminating the tenancy, requiring the Respondent to reinstate a wall that had been removed, reimbursing the cleaning costs, and authorising the disposal of the Respondent's construction safety netting left at the premises.

The Applicant filed an agreement which identified himself as the head tenant and Ceiling Works Ltd, represented by the Respondent, as the subtenant. The agreement described the premises as office premises rented to the subtenant for office use only. The agreement was unsigned.

Section 5(1)(a) RTA provides that the Act does not apply where the premises are commercial premises. Section 2(1) RTA defines commercial premises as premises that are not residential. Section 2(3) RTA provides that, where leased premises are used for both residential and commercial purposes, they are deemed to be residential unless it is proved that they were let “principally for purposes other than residential purposes”.

When determining whether the Act is excluded, the Tribunal considers the substance of the agreement between the parties rather than the labels they have applied.

In determining whether the premises are primarily residential or commercial, relevant factors include: the nature of the premises; any advertising and pre- contractual statements about the intended use of the premises; the terms of the agreement; and whether any chattels provided are more likely for commercial or residential use.

In considering the evidence, I find that the premises were let for a commercial not a residential purpose. The Landlord described the space as a workshop with adjoining offices, and the Respondent was to occupy one of those offices for the operation of their business. This is consistent with the written agreement, which records that the head tenant (the Applicant) agreed to sublet office premises to the subtenant (Respondent) for office use only. The terms of the agreement therefore point clearly to a commercial tenancy rather than a residential arrangement

The nature of the premises also lacked the features ordinarily associated with residential accommodation. No chattels were provided. There was no bathroom, kitchen, or toilet facilities within the office space. Although the Respondent appears to have slept in the office after moving a couch into the premises, this was not authorised by or specified in the agreement. I find the evidence does not show the Applicant agreed to or intended the premises to be used as a residence, and the Respondent's unilateral decision to sleep there did not convert this to a residential tenancy.

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine issues arising from commercial properties.

The application is dismissed.

Order

The application by the Applicant is dismissed.

Reasons

The Applicant attended. The Respondent did not appear.
The Applicant has applied for termination, rent arrears, disposal of goods and compensation.
The Applicant submitted that he owned a workshop with adjoining rooms that could be used as offices. He rented one of those rooms to the Respondent for use as an office. The Applicant took possession of the premises on or about 25 August 2025 because the Applicant abandoned the premises approximately two months ago. Although the premises were rented for business purposes, the Applicant saw that the Respondent had begun sleeping there, noting that a couch had been placed in the room. The Applicant sought orders terminating the tenancy, requiring the Respondent to reinstate a wall that had been removed, reimbursing the cleaning costs, and authorising the disposal of the Respondent's construction safety netting left at the premises.
The Applicant filed an agreement which identified himself as the head tenant and Ceiling Works Ltd, represented by the Respondent, as the subtenant. The agreement described the premises as office premises rented to the subtenant for office use only. The agreement was unsigned.
Section 5(1)(a) RTA provides that the Act does not apply where the premises are commercial premises. Section 2(1) RTA defines commercial premises as premises that are not residential. Section 2(3) RTA provides that, where leased premises are used for both residential and commercial purposes, they are deemed to be residential unless it is proved that they were let “principally for purposes other than residential purposes”.
When determining whether the Act is excluded, the Tribunal considers the substance of the agreement between the parties rather than the labels they have applied.
In determining whether the premises are primarily residential or commercial, relevant factors include: the nature of the premises; any advertising and pre- contractual statements about the intended use of the premises; the terms of the agreement; and whether any chattels provided are more likely for commercial or residential use.
In considering the evidence, I find that the premises were let for a commercial not a residential purpose. The Landlord described the space as a workshop with adjoining offices, and the Respondent was to occupy one of those offices for the operation of their business. This is consistent with the written agreement, which records that the head tenant (the Applicant) agreed to sublet office premises to the subtenant (Respondent) for office use only. The terms of the agreement therefore point clearly to a commercial tenancy rather than a residential arrangement
The nature of the premises also lacked the features ordinarily associated with residential accommodation. No chattels were provided. There was no bathroom, kitchen, or toilet facilities within the office space. Although the Respondent appears to have slept in the office after moving a couch into the premises, this was not authorised by or specified in the agreement. I find the evidence does not show the Applicant agreed to or intended the premises to be used as a residence, and the Respondent's unilateral decision to sleep there did not convert this to a residential tenancy.
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine issues arising from commercial properties.
The application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5508694 — Rent arrears at 291 Church Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5508694 — Rent arrears at 291 Church Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.