What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5518171 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5518171?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5518171?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5518171?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14192337-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5518171 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5518171?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5518171?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5518171?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14192337-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5518171 — Cleanliness

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the tenant’s substantive claims. The tenancy is excluded from the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] was assisted with an interpreter.
For ease of reference, I will refer to the parties as the landlord and tenants.
The tenants have applied for orders under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) against the landlord in respect of the termination of the tenancy and a breach of quiet enjoyment, payment of the bond and rent reimbursement.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
These proceedings were scheduled for a preliminary hearing to determine jurisdiction as it appeared to Tenancy Services that may be an excluded tenancy under the RTA.

Is this an excluded tenancy?

Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental and must be decided before the Tribunal can go on to make any other findings in a case. Put simply, if there is no jurisdiction, then the Tribunal cannot proceed to hear the case.
The Tribunal can only consider disputes in relation to residential tenancies which fall within the RTA between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant. 1
The RTA sets out the following relevant definitions: 2 • 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 the agreement. • residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful. • 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. • tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises.
The RTA provides a statutory presumption that the RTA will apply to all residential tenancies, unless specifically excluded by the RTA. 3 The onus is on the respondent to prove that the RTA does not apply. 4 1 RTA, s 77 (1). 2 Section 2 of the RTA. 3 RTA, s 4.
Section 5 of the RTA sets out several cases which are excluded from the RTA. In this case I have to consider whether the exclusion in section 5 (1)(n) applies. This exclusion provides that the RTA will not apply – • 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.
A boarding house is a residential premises containing 1 or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants of the boarding house; and occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time. 5 I do not consider this premises is a boarding house due to the number of adult tenants being less than six.
The District Court in Adams v Massey University Palmerston North 6 , stated that in order to give effect to the Act’s true intent and meaning, the exemptions in section 5 RTA should be interpreted strictly and not liberally.
The issue I must consider then is whether the premises were principally used as the respondent’s “place of residence” during the tenancy.
In Main v Hooker 7 it was said that a “place of residence” meant the place to which a person would normally go to live, their home.
The exclusion in 5(1)(n) RTA was considered by the District Court in Musson v Dobrisek. 8 The Judge in that decision considered tenancy premises where the owner lived in one bedroom and the other eight bedrooms were rented out to other people. Everyone shared the use of the kitchen, lounge, bathroom etc – the common areas. The focus in that case was on the principal residence point. The issue was not whether this was the landlord’s main residence, but whether this house was being used mainly as a home or effectively being used as a business. The Court said the question to be determined when ascertaining whether the s 5(n) RTA exclusion applies is not whether the premises is used as the principal place of residence of the landlord but rather whether the principal use of these premises is as a place of residence by the landlord? The Court further said the exception could apply only to small scale and limited letting, because the principal use of the property would have to be as a residence for the landlord. In that case it was found that the landlord’s use of the premises was commensurate with the other occupants, and this did not reflect that the principal use of these premises was a place of residence by the landlord. The Court held that the exclusion in section 5(1)(n) RTA did not apply. 4 RTA, s 10. 5 Section 66 B of the RTA. 6 Adams v Massey University Palmerston North TT 43/94, 10 October 1994 7 Main v Hooker (CIV-2180/03), 2 February 2004, Judge Green) 8 Musson v Dobrisek CIV-2006-032-36, 5 May 2006.
More recently, in Cavanagh v Jackson 9 the High Court, said: • However, as observed by the Judge in Musson v Dobrisek, the intention of s 5(1)(n) appears to be to cover the situation of an owner or tenant of a house letting out a bedroom or a bedsitting room to a tenant or sub-tenant while the principal use of the house remains as accommodation for the landlord. The tenants position
The tenants say they advertised for a room to rent in Rotorua in October 2025 and the landlord messaged them offering a room which they accepted. They say shortly thereafter the landlord said she would be moving to Tauranga and invited them to move into the home she planned on renting. The tenants provided financial information to assist with the application for the tenancy.
The tenant’s say they moved with the landlord after she obtained possession of the premises on or about 5 December 2025.
The tenant’s say on the first day they moved into the premises they babysat the landlord’s children.
The tenants say they were only aware that they would be required to pay weekly rent of $400 however shortly after moving into the premises the landlord said they would need to contribute to water and power.
The tenants were not sure how many rooms were in the property but confirmed they had one room, that the landlord and her two children each had a room, and another family resided in one room together (the Yen family). The tenants would purchase and cook their own food and had some possessions, but the sole piece of furniture in their room, the bed, was owned by the landlord, and all other items around the home were owned by the landlord (save for presumably the items owned and stored in the Yen family’s room). All of the items in the kitchen belonged to the landlord and the landlord purchased cleaning products and toilet paper.
The tenants explained that they were able to use the living areas but largely stayed in their room as the landlord’s children would use the living room to watch tv. The tenants explained that they did not join in the Christmas celebration the landlord had with her family in the living areas and said the landlord’s family would often visit.
Unfortunately, on 26 December 2026 the parties appear to have had a confrontation about the tenancy, which included a misunderstanding or dispute about water rates and power costs and about the tenancy ending. The landlord has been charged with a criminal offence in relation to that confrontation, for which I understand she has pleaded guilty and is awaiting sentencing. 9 Cavanagh v Jackson [2025] NZHC 1491
The tenant’s left the premises after the altercation and the landlord has not allowed them to return to the home.
All of the tenant’s items have been returned to them, but the tenant’s seek refund of the bond they paid, rent reimbursement and compensation and exemplary damages in relation to the altercation they had with the landlord. The landlord’s position
The landlord says this is a flatmate situation and the RTA does not apply. The landlord says she is the sole tenant under a tenancy agreement with the landlord/ property manager.
The landlord explained that the home had six bedrooms, a studio and an office. The landlord uses one bedroom. The landlord’s two children each have their own bedroom.
The Yen family uses one bedroom. The tenant’s used one bedroom – this room has remained vacant after the tenants have left.
One room I understand has been unused. The landlord uses the office for work purposes and uses the studio as a clinic for her work. The lounge and dining room are shared by all of the occupants. A bathroom was largely shared by all the occupants.
The landlord says she treated the tenants like family, assisting them with transport and she agreed the tenant’s cared for her children.
The landlord explained that she was spending long days away from the home over the first few weeks of the tenancy while she completed her work commitments in Rotorua but was otherwise living in the premises. Discussion
There was no written agreement between the parties.
There is no dispute that the premises was used for residential purposes and that the tenants paid rent to the landlord to live in the home. A bond was paid; however, this was not paid to the bond centre, nor was it recorded as an agreement between the parties that this should have occurred.
The landlord has paid a bond to the property manager from whom she rents the property from. The landlord is the sole tenant on the tenancy agreement with the property management firm and therefore solely liable for rent to the property management firm.
In this case there were six bedrooms. Only one was used by the tenants. The facilities (the kitchen, laundry, and dining room) were able to be shared. The other four bedrooms were for the landlord’s use. The landlord also used the office and the studio for her work purposes. The landlord also had, in practical terms, the majority of the use of the kitchen, dining room and living room. The landlord therefore has had greater number of rooms reserved for her sole use.
The landlord used this home as her family home. The focus being on use, not duration, I conclude that the principal use of these premises was as a place of residence by the landlord. The tenancy is therefore excluded from the provisions of the RTA by virtue of section 5(1)(n) RTA.

Did the parties agree the RTA should apply?

Despite any exemption applying to exclude the tenancy from the RTA the parties may agree in writing that all or any of the provisions of the RTA shall apply in respect of the tenancy, either without modification or with such modifications as they may so agree and any such agreement may confer upon the Tribunal, in respect of the tenancy, all or any of the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal by the RTA in respect of tenancies to which the RTA applies. 10
The parties did not enter into an agreement that the RTA shall apply, accordingly I consider the parties have not contracted back into the RTA.
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the tenant’s claims. The application is dismissed. Suppression and Filing fee
On my enquiry, the tenant did not seek name suppression.
The landlord sought suppression, and I have ordered suppression for the landlord, given the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction, therefore the landlord has been substantially successful .
The tenants have been unsuccessful with the application; therefore, I do not award the filing fee to the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5518171 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5518171 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is this an excluded tenancy?

Did the parties agree the RTA should apply?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Is this an excluded tenancy?

Did the parties agree the RTA should apply?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.