Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5511411 — 14-day notice
Decided 15 Jun 2026 · Published 15 Jun 2026 · Application 5511411
- 14-day notice
- Boarding House
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
- The Tribunal declares this to be a tenancy under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and that the Tribunal holds jurisdiction to determine the application.
- The landlord’s termination email dated 16 May 2026 is declared unlawful and therefore set aside.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing via remote video and telephone link.
- The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both a landlord and tenant. Background
- The tenancy started on 28 April 2026. The premises consist of a new two-level house with an attached granny flat. The granny flat has its own entrance with its own kitchen, bathroom and toilet. The rent is $375.00 plus an extra $50.00 per week for power, water, gas and internet.
- The tenant sourced the premises by responding to an advertisement via Facebook Marketplace. The tenant resides there by herself.
- The landlord in this case is also the owner of the house and resides there with his family.
- The parties entered into an agreement for rental of the premises headed “Flat / house – Sharing agreement”. The agreement records expressly that: • The Agreement started on 28 April 2026 and ends on 27 April 2027. • The rent is $375.00 per week and is to be paid weekly in advance by the flatmate to the head tenant/landlord. • A bond of $750.00 is payable to the head tenant upon accepting and signing this agreement. • ... • This agreement can be terminated by 14 days’ notice given by either party in writing. • ... • In the event of any dispute, the parties agree that the dispute will be determined by the Disputes Tribunal.
- The question for the Tribunal to determine is whether this arrangement between the parties is a ‘flat / house sharing’ agreement or a residential tenancy. For brevity I will refer to the parties as ‘landlord’ and ‘tenant’.
- As I will discuss further below, the nature of the premises is not in dispute. It is a large modern two-level house. The landlord occupies the main area, including upstairs, and the tenant the bottom granny flat. Both levels are self-contained. Parties’ submissions
- The landlord’s position is that this is not a residential tenancy.
- The premises were advertised as a ‘modern single unit for rent’. The advertisement promoted a private entrance – enjoy complete independence, separate washroom – no sharing required, own kitchen with gas stove – cook at your own convenience.
- The parties signed a flat/house sharing agreement on 14 and 16 April 2026. The landlord received bond money of $750.00 which the landlord says has been sent to the bond centre.
- The granny flat has its own entrance with its own kitchen, bathroom and toilet. The rent is $375.00 plus an extra $50.00 for power, water, gas and internet.
- The landlord says that the house is new with 5 bedrooms. The landlord says that if the tenant wanted to go upstairs she could. The tenant does not accept this. The tenant says that would be difficult given the internal door is locked both sides. The tenant does not have the code for the main front door.
- In response to questions from the Tribunal, the landlord confirmed that the tenant did not access the landlord’s area of the house, nor use the landlord’s kitchen, nor lounge. The parties do not share any facilities inside the house.
- Ultimately, the tenant suggests that this arrangement is a residential tenancy.
- The tenant stated that when she moved in she did not pay too much attention about the house sharing agreement, however when she received a 14-day notice she then went to the agreement and noticed the 14-day clause.
- The landlord says that his parents will be moving into house due to health issues with the landlord’s child.
- The tenant says that moving into a place and now having to move out again has been stressful and expensive. Analysis
- The issue to be determined at this time, is whether this is a residential tenancy for which the RTA applies or is it a flatting / house sharing arrangement for which the RTA is excluded. If it is excluded (termed an excluded tenancy) the obligations that exist between landlords and tenants will not apply, and further the Tribunal would not have jurisdiction to consider the claims.
- Section 4 of the RTA, states that the RTA “applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided”.
- There is no doubt that the premises that were rented by the tenant would be residential premises, and furthermore that the tenant would have a tenancy as defined in the RTA. The term ‘tenancy’ is defined in section 2 as follows: tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy
- In this case the tenant pays the landlord rent, and in return she gets the right to exclusively occupy the downstairs unit. Having heard evidence from the tenant and landlord at the hearing, I am in no doubt that only the tenant had the right to occupy the downstairs unit.
- As recorded above, section 4 confirms that the RTA applies to every tenancy for residential purposes, except as specifically provided. The specific exclusions are found in section 5 of the RTA.
- Section 5 sets out wide ranging circumstances in which that arrangement that would otherwise be a residential tenancy, is excluded from the RTA. Of particular relevance in this case is the exclusion at section 5(1)(n), which holds: This Act shall not apply in the following cases: ... (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:
- As I indicated at the hearing, the arrangement in this case is akin to a ‘granny flat’ situation. That is, there is a main dwelling that has been divided into two dwelling units.
- In Harding v Schellevis, Tan and Caroto [2021] NZHC 1265, the High Court considered whether the occupants of a ‘granny flat’ situated within a larger dwelling were boarders or tenants. The upper level of the dwelling had four bedrooms, a kitchen, bathrooms and a living area. The family also used a living room, garage and laundry downstairs. The ground floor also had a separate granny flat comprising two bedrooms, a kitchenette, bathroom, laundry and living room.
- The granny flat had been previously rented as a separate dwelling. However, in 2015 the Council advised the owner that, due to the lack of a firewall, it could not be tenanted separately. From that time on the owner entered into house- sharing agreements.
- The granny flat had a separate entrance, a dedicated parking area, and an area outside for the occupants’ exclusive use. Water and power were included in the rent and the occupants arranged their own internet. The landlord could only enter the granny flat for inspections, repairs and viewings for new tenants. The occupants had no right of entry to the rest of the house.
- I accept that in the case before me the arrangements differ somewhat, but broadly the arrangements are similar, that is there are two separate dwelling units.
- The High Court said the critical issue was whether the ‘premises’ referred to in s 5(1)(n) were just the granny flat, or the dwelling as a whole including the granny flat. It found that the relevant premises were the granny flat and not the entire dwelling. It gave several reasons: a. The natural meaning of premises contemplates more than one premises within larger premises. b. The statutory definition of premises includes “any part of any premises”. c. The RTA supports a generous approach to jurisdiction and a strict approach to exceptions. d. The right to occupy did not include any areas used by the landlord or her family. There were no shared or common use areas. The landlord could only enter the flat with notice and for the limited purposes in the agreement.
- The self-contained nature of the granny flat was decisive in Harding. Even where there is some shared use of facilities, such as a toilet or shower, the RTA may still apply to a largely self-contained dwelling.
- In the case before me, I am entirely satisfied that given the fully self-contained nature of the downstairs “premises” rented by the tenant, mean the premises would not fall within the section 5(1)(n) exclusion, meaning the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the tenant’s application.
- A landlord cannot circumvent their obligations under the RTA by disguising the arrangement as a flat/house sharing one when the evidence clearly suggests otherwise, as in this case.
- I find therefore that the arrangement between the parties falls under the jurisdiction of the Residential Tenancies Act.
- Accordingly, it follows that the landlord’s termination email dated 16 May 2026 was unlawful and set aside.
- The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, 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.
- The tenant applied for a name suppression order. The tenant is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful.