Tenancy Tribunal Dismisses Claim Due to Lack of Jurisdiction
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a tenant's claim against a landlord because the premises were not self-contained and the landlord lived there. The Tribunal ruled that it lacked jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
⚖️ Legal holding
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over disputes involving premises that are not self-contained and where the landlord continues to reside.
📖 What the law says
This section generally states that the Act applies to all tenancies for residential purposes, unless other parts of the Act say otherwise. In this case, the Tribunal considered whether the specific living arrangement fell under this general rule or an exception.
This section lists specific situations where the Act does not apply, such as commercial premises or certain types of hospitals. The Tribunal would have looked at whether the living situation in this case fit any of these exclusions, particularly if the premises were not self-contained and the landlord also lived there.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the application due to lack of jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed an application brought by a tenant against a landlord due to lack of jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Tribunal found that the premises were not self-contained and the landlord continued to reside there, falling outside the Act's jurisdiction.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5154571 1
[2025] NZTT 5154571
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The application is dismissed.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
2. This was a hearing to decide in the first instance, whether or not the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction over the dispute between the parties.
3. The Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) section 4 provides that the RTA includes all tenancy agreements except those that are excepted:
“This Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.”
4. Section 5 of the RTA then lists exclusions to section 4, including the following at section (1)(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:”
5. A boarding house is defined in section 66B of the RTA as a residential premises containing 1 or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5154571 2
the tenants of the boarding house; and (b) occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time.
6. There is no suggestion from either party that the property in question is a boarding house.
7. Both parties agreed that [NAME] rented a room from [NAME], and [NAME] who is the property owner continued to live at the same premises.
8. [NAME] endeavoured to create a separate area from the areas of the house that [NAME] used. That is not sufficient to make his area of the premises “self-contained”.
9. In determining whether a living arrangement falls within the jurisdiction of the RTA, the Tribunal looks at the intention of the parties and the function of the arrangement.
10. [NAME] accepted that when he moved into the property he was renting a bedroom. He stated that he then endeavoured to make it self-contained by adding a kitchenette because he didn’t like using the rest of the house. [NAME]’s area never contained a bathroom.
11. [NAME] stated that while he was living at the house, he moved between three different bedrooms. He accepted that the kitchen, bathroom and laundry were shared facilities that could be used by either party.
12. In my view, the circumstances of this living arrangement fall squarely within the exclusion of section 5(1)(n) of the RTA. This is because the property owner continued to live at property while [NAME] was living there and because the premises in question were not self-contained premises in as much as utility areas were shared (whether or not [NAME] chose to use them), and because [NAME]’s area was not a specific area but changed while he was living at the premises.
13. Because of this, the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over this dispute.
[NAME]
29 May 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5154571 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5154571 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 Tenancy Tribunal does not have authority over this dispute because the property owner continued to live at the premises.
- The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the rented premises were not self-contained, as utility areas were shared.
- The tenant's rented area changed between three different bedrooms, indicating it was not a specific, self-contained space.
- The tenant admitted that when he moved in, he was renting only a bedroom and that the kitchen, bathroom, and laundry were shared.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the application because it lacked jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the Tenancy Tribunal had jurisdiction over a tenancy agreement where the landlord continued to live at the premises.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the Tenancy Tribunal did not have jurisdiction because the premises were not self-contained and the landlord lived there.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 4 and 5(1)(n) were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the premises were not self-contained and the landlord continued to reside there.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should check if their premises are self-contained and if the landlord lives there before bringing a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence that mattered was the description of the living arrangement and the fact that the landlord continued to reside at the premises.