Flatting Agreement Not Covered by Tenancy Tribunal
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal decided that a flatting arrangement between two people was not covered by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and therefore they had no jurisdiction to hear the case. This means that disputes arising from such arrangements cannot be resolved through the Tenancy Tribunal.
⚖️ Legal holding
A flatting arrangement is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📖 What the law says
This section explains that the Tenancy Tribunal has the power to resolve disagreements between landlords and tenants, but only for tenancies that are covered by this Act. It also allows the Tribunal to decide if a property is considered residential premises under the Act, or if an agreement is a tenancy agreement covered by the Act.
This section states that the Act generally applies to all agreements for renting a home, unless other parts of the Act say otherwise. This means most residential rental situations fall under this law.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal found that the arrangement was a flatting agreement, thus excluded from its jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📜 Headnote Official document
In this case, the Tenancy Tribunal ruled that a flatting arrangement between two individuals was excluded from the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Tribunal found that the arrangement was not a tenancy agreement subject to the Act.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5503580 1
[2026] NZTT 5503580
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction therefore the application is dismissed.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing.
2. [NAME] seeks his bond of $1,280.00.
3. There is an issue as to whether or not this is a flatting type arrangement and thus excluded from the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
4. If the tenancy is excluded from the Residential Tenancies Act, the application goes no further as the Tribunal will not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim.
Background
5. [NAME] entered into a flat/house sharing agreement (in writing) with [NAME] commencing 31 December 2025. Max agreed to pay a bond of $1,280.00 to the head tenant ([NAME]) and weekly rent of $320.00. Max moved out on 29 March 2026 and is seeking a refund of his bond.
6. [NAME] appeared on behalf of the Trust. [NAME] is [NAME]’s father. [NAME] confirmed that the bond was lodged with the Bond Centre for safekeeping, but he is not a landlord to Max. [NAME] is the head tenant and she entered into the flat sharing agreement with Max.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5503580 2
Does the application fall under the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal?
7. There are 3 categories of person who occupy residential premises namely boarders/flatmates, squatters, or tenants.
8. Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
9. A boarder or flatmate is a person who lives with the owner of the premises or legal occupier (head tenant), and who has an agreement or licence from said owner or legal occupier to live there.
10. I find that the arrangement between the parties is not a tenancy agreement subject to the RTA, and the Tenancy Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to determine the claim.
11. The arrangement involved an intention for the parties to live co-operatively as flatmates with [NAME] liable to [NAME] for his share of the rent and the parties sharing common living areas with 2 other flatmates. I am satisfied that the living arrangement was indicative of a flatting type agreement and therefore excluded from the terms of the Residential Tenancies Act.
12. The signed flatmate agreement specifically provides that in the event of any dispute, the parties agree that the dispute will be determined by the Disputes Tribunal.
13. As the arrangement between the parties is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Residential Tenancies Act and therefore the Tenancy Tribunal, this application is dismissed.
14. A copy of this order will be sent to [NAME].
[NAME] 18 June 2026
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5503580 3
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order, or the failure to make an order, where the amount in dispute on appeal is
less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work, or the failure to make an order, where the value of the
work in dispute on appeal is less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The arrangement between the parties is a flatting type agreement, not a tenancy agreement.
- The signed flatmate agreement specifies disputes will be determined by the Disputes Tribunal, not the Tenancy Tribunal.
- The parties lived cooperatively as flatmates, sharing common living areas and paying rent directly to the head tenant.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The applicant sought a refund of his bond under the Residential Tenancies Act.
- The applicant argued the Tenancy Tribunal had jurisdiction over flatting arrangements.
- The applicant claimed the bond should be refunded based on the terms of the Residential Tenancies Act.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal decided that it had no jurisdiction over a flatting arrangement and dismissed the application.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about a tenant seeking a refund of their bond from the head tenant in a flatting arrangement.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the arrangement was a flatting agreement, which is excluded from the Tenancy Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 77(1) and 4, were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the arrangement was a flatting agreement, not a tenancy agreement, and thus outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case, as the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction over the flatting arrangement.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, disputes arising from flatting arrangements cannot be resolved through the Tenancy Tribunal.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The signed flatmate agreement and the nature of the living arrangement were the key pieces of evidence considered by the Tribunal.