What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5524972 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5524972?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5524972?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5524972?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13848381-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5524972 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5524972?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5524972?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5524972?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13848381-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5524972 — Cleanliness

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties names and identifying details.
By way of declaration, it is noted that the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the relationship or agreement between the parties.
The application is struck out.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted via video/teleconference.
This hearing was convened to consider jurisdiction.
The tenancy formed via a signed House sharing agreement and commenced 16 May 2026. This agreement stated that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 did not apply. It also provided that any dispute should be determined by the Disputes Tribunal.
The head tenant(s) in that agreement was the respondent to this application.

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

The Tribunal’s general jurisdiction, under s77(1) of the RTA is 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.”
Section 2 RTA provides that a “landlord” and “tenant” are respectively grantor and grantee of a tenancy. “...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...” rent, means any money, goods, services, or other valuable consideration in the nature of rent to be paid or supplied under a tenancy agreement by the tenant; but does not include any sum of money payable or paid by way of bond”
Section 5 of the RTA details exclusions to the RTA. Section 5(n) specifically excludes arrangements where the premises are being used for residence by the landlord or family. This section envisages owners of a home renting out their spare rooms in a flatmate or boarding type situation.
The exception to this exception is if the premise is a boarding house. A boarding house is defined in section 66B of the RTA as residential premises containing one or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants of the boarding house that is occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least six tenants at any one time. This is clearly not a boarding house situation as there was no intention or actuality of the landlords having six other flatmates/boarders at any one time.
A ‘flatmate’ resides in the premises by way of a licence from the owner of the premises In Musson v Dobrisek & Ors DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006-032-36, 5 May 2006, Judge Broadmore considered the definition of a flatmate. He states (at para [22]: “By ‘flatmates’ I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, all occupants are on the same footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens.”
I heard this is a three-bedroom home owned by the respondent. She lives in one bedroom. The two other bedrooms are used for long-term occupancy, or alternatively for short-term or friends to stay.
There is one bathroom that was shared by all occupants. There were no common areas segregated, or with restricted access. Both utilities and some consumable costs were shared. The agreement stated, “The flatmate must pay 50%-66% electricity and internet each week (depending on 4 or 3 people) and cleaning stuff as the bills are received.”
There may have been some disagreement between the parties about access or use of certain facilities or hours of use, or other matters, but these are not disagreements exclusive to residential tenancies.
As discussed at the hearing, having considered this situation I am satisfied that it clearly falls within the exception detailed in s 5(n) of the RTA. This is the owner’s home, and they rented out a spare room to the applicant to reside in for a period. Accordingly, this was a boarding or flatmate arrangement, which is not one the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction over. Therefore, if the tenant wishes to progress their claim, they need to file an application in the Disputes Tribunal. Suppression
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to suppress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion if in the public interest to do so. The tenant sought suppression in their application and although they were not successful, as the application was genuinely but mistakenly filed, I consider it just to suppress the parties details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted via video/teleconference.

This hearing was convened to consider jurisdiction.

The tenancy formed via a signed House sharing agreement and commenced 16 May 2026. This agreement stated that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 did not apply. It also provided that any dispute should be determined by the Disputes Tribunal.

The head tenant(s) in that agreement was the respondent to this application.

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

The Tribunal’s general jurisdiction, under s77(1) of the RTA is 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.”

Section 2 RTA provides that a “landlord” and “tenant” are respectively grantor and grantee of a tenancy. “...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...” rent, means any money, goods, services, or other valuable consideration in the nature of rent to be paid or supplied under a tenancy agreement by the tenant; but does not include any sum of money payable or paid by way of bond”

Section 5 of the RTA details exclusions to the RTA. Section 5(n) specifically excludes arrangements where the premises are being used for residence by the landlord or family. This section envisages owners of a home renting out their spare rooms in a flatmate or boarding type situation.

The exception to this exception is if the premise is a boarding house. A boarding house is defined in section 66B of the RTA as residential premises containing one or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants of the boarding house that is occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least six tenants at any one time. This is clearly not a boarding house situation as there was no intention or actuality of the landlords having six other flatmates/boarders at any one time.

A ‘flatmate’ resides in the premises by way of a licence from the owner of the premises In Musson v Dobrisek & Ors DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006-032-36, 5 May 2006, Judge Broadmore considered the definition of a flatmate. He states (at para [22]: “By ‘flatmates’ I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, all occupants are on the same footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens.”

I heard this is a three-bedroom home owned by the respondent. She lives in one bedroom. The two other bedrooms are used for long-term occupancy, or alternatively for short-term or friends to stay.

There is one bathroom that was shared by all occupants. There were no common areas segregated, or with restricted access. Both utilities and some consumable costs were shared. The agreement stated, “The flatmate must pay 50%-66% electricity and internet each week (depending on 4 or 3 people) and cleaning stuff as the bills are received.”

There may have been some disagreement between the parties about access or use of certain facilities or hours of use, or other matters, but these are not disagreements exclusive to residential tenancies.

As discussed at the hearing, having considered this situation I am satisfied that it clearly falls within the exception detailed in s 5(n) of the RTA. This is the owner’s home, and they rented out a spare room to the applicant to reside in for a period. Accordingly, this was a boarding or flatmate arrangement, which is not one the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction over. Therefore, if the tenant wishes to progress their claim, they need to file an application in the Disputes Tribunal. Suppression

Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to suppress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion if in the public interest to do so. The tenant sought suppression in their application and although they were not successful, as the application was genuinely but mistakenly filed, I consider it just to suppress the parties details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5524972 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5524972 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions