Tenancy Tribunal Dismisses Claim Due to Lack of Landlord-Tenant Relationship
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a tenant's claim against a landlord because the relationship did not qualify as a landlord-tenant relationship under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Tribunal determined that the premises were primarily used as a place of residence by the landlord's family, which excluded the case from the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
⚖️ Legal holding
Section 5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 excludes premises from the Act's application if they are primarily used as a place of residence by the landlord or their family.
📖 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 premises or where a significant part of the tenant's income comes from using the premises for farming or similar activities.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The relationship between the parties was deemed not to be one of landlord and tenant, thus falling outside the Tenancy Tribunal's jurisdiction.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a claim brought by a tenant against a landlord due to the relationship not constituting a landlord-tenant relationship under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Tribunal found that the premises were primarily used as a place of residence by the landlord's family, thus falling outside its jurisdiction.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5241532 1
[2025] NZTT 5241532
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT MANUKAU | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI MANUKAU
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. By declaration, the relationship between the parties is not one of landlord and tenant and therefore is not within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
2. The application is dismissed.
Reasons:
1. The tenant attended the hearing. The landlord did not attend the hearing.
2. There are two preliminary issues for this application.
3. The first is that the tenant does not have the surname of the landlord. She only knows that his first name is [NAME], he lives at the tenancy address, and he is the son of the owners.
4. The tenant has produced correspondence from the landlord, but it does not have his surname. This will prove difficult for enforcement of any order.
5. The second issue is whether the relationship between the parties is one of landlord and tenant.
6. Section 5(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Act shall not apply:
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5241532 2
…(n) where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, prinicipally 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.”
7. The premises do not meet the definition of a boarding house1 because it was only the tenant and the owner’s son living at the premises. When the tenant moved out another tenant moved in.
8. From the evidence I have reached the view that this situation is not within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
9. As this is not within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal the tenant’s claim is dismissed.
[NAME]
11 June 2025
1 Section 66B Residential Tenancies Act 1986
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5241532 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5241532 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 premises are primarily used as a place of residence by the landlord's family.
- The relationship between the parties is not considered a landlord and tenant relationship under the Residential Tenancies Act.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant claimed the relationship was one of landlord and tenant.
- The tenant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the landlord's identity or the nature of the relationship.
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 tenant's claim because the relationship did not qualify as a landlord-tenant relationship.
What was the dispute about?
The tenant claimed against a landlord, but the relationship did not meet the criteria for a landlord-tenant relationship.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to dismiss the claim because the premises were primarily used as a place of residence by the landlord's family, which falls outside the Tenancy Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, specifically section 5(1)(n), was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the premises were primarily used as a place of residence by the landlord's family, thus excluding the case from the Tenancy 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.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may find that their case is dismissed if the relationship does not meet the criteria for a landlord-tenant relationship.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Correspondence from the landlord and the nature of the premises use were relevant pieces of evidence.