No Jurisdiction Over Relocatable Homes on Bare Land
📌 In brief
In this case, the Tenancy Tribunal found that it had no authority to make a decision because the tenancy agreement involved relocatable homes placed on bare land, which falls outside the scope of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenancy agreement involving the use of relocatable homes on bare land is excluded from the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📖 What the law says
This section lists specific situations where the Residential Tenancies Act does not apply. For example, it does not apply to commercial properties or where a tenant's income largely comes from using the property for farming or similar activities.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction due to the nature of the tenancy agreement.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over a tenancy agreement involving relocatable homes on bare land, as such agreements are excluded from the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 under section 5(1)(t).
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5138990 1
[2025] NZTT 5138990
TENANCY TRIBUNAL - [Event location suppressed]
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [Tenancy address suppressed]
ORDER
1. The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.
2. This application is dismissed for because there is no jurisdiction.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing. I clarified the parties could attend the hearing even though there is a current family protection order.
2. The application is for termination of the tenancy because of an assault.
3. There is a preliminary issue whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies.
4. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
5. Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Section 5(1)(t) states that a tenancy is excluded:
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5138990 2
where the premises comprise bare land (with or without facilities) on which the tenant has the right under the tenancy agreement to place or erect a mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter:
6. The parties agree that [the occupant/s] owns a relocatable home and this is located on land owned by [[NAME]].
7. It seems most likely to me this agreement that [the occupant/s] can use the land is not a residential tenancy because of the exclusion under section 5(1)(t) RTA. The fact there is no tenancy agreement is not significant because there has been an agreement for use of the land.
8. This means I have no jurisdiction to decide the application.
9. I have used my discretion to allow suppression. I find that any public interest is in the law rather than the names. I also note the parties are family and publishing the name of the most successful party would identify the other. See section 95A RTA.
[NAME] 21 February 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5138990 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 for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth 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.
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5138990 4
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].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The Tribunal dismissed the application because it lacked the authority to hear the claim.
- The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not apply to tenancies involving bare land where a tenant places a mobile home.
- The parties agreed that the occupant owned a relocatable home located on land owned by the other party.
- The agreement for the use of the land was not considered a residential tenancy due to a specific exclusion in the Act.
- The absence of a formal tenancy agreement was not important because an agreement for land use still existed.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal decided it had no jurisdiction to hear the case because the tenancy agreement involved relocatable homes on bare land.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about terminating a tenancy agreement due to an assault, but the agreement involved relocatable homes on bare land.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that it had no jurisdiction because the tenancy agreement involved relocatable homes on bare land, which is excluded from the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 5(1)(t) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the tenancy agreement involved relocatable homes on bare land, which is excluded from the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 had no jurisdiction to hear the claim.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, the Tenancy Tribunal will not have jurisdiction if their tenancy agreement involves relocatable homes on bare land.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify any particular evidence or documents that mattered.