Tenancy Tribunal dismisses claim for lack of jurisdiction
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a claim brought by a tenant seeking the return of a bond. The Tribunal ruled that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not apply to flatting arrangements where the landlord uses the premises primarily as a place of residence.
⚖️ Legal holding
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not apply to flatting arrangements where the landlord uses the premises primarily as a place of residence.
📖 What the law says
This section lists specific situations where the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not apply. For example, it does not apply to commercial premises or where a tenant's income largely comes from using the premises for farming.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal dismissed the claim due to lack of jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a claim brought by the claimant seeking the return of a bond, finding that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not apply to flatting arrangements where the landlord uses the premises primarily as a place of residence.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5465834 1
[2026] NZTT 5465834
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
PREMISES ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Reasons:
1. The hearing was conducted on [NAME].
2. Both parties attended.
3. A Japanese interpreter attended for the applicant.
4. The applicant has filed a claim seeking return of $500.00 that she says was a bond.
5. The respondent says the $500.00 was to hold the room for the applicant for the two
weeks before she arrived, the rent being $250.00 per week.
6. The respondent and her partner live in the premises. The premises has two bedrooms,
one bathroom, and one kitchen. The applicant had her own bedroom as did the
respondent and her partner. They shared the rest of the premises.
7. The situation was a kind of flatting situation. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does
not typically apply to flatting arrangements. Section 5 of the Residential Tenancies Act
1986 sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act.
Under s 5(1)(n), the Act “shall not apply”:
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5465834 2
(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…
8. I am satisfied that during the tenancy the respondent used the premises principally as a place of residence.
9. It follows, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim. It is dismissed.
10. The Disputes Tribunal may have jurisdiction to hear such an application. The applicant
may wish to lodge a claim in that Tribunal. If so, they should include a copy of this
decision in their application to prove that the Tribunal has found it does not have
jurisdiction to hear the application.
R Kee
17 June 2026
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5465834 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 0800 836 262 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 http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5465834 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 were used primarily as a place of residence by the respondent.
- The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not apply to flatting arrangements where the landlord lives in the premises.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The applicant claimed the $500.00 was a bond that needed to be returned.
- The respondent argued the $500.00 was a payment to hold the room for the applicant for two weeks before she arrived.
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 claim for lack of jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies to a flatting arrangement where the landlord lives in the premises.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not apply to flatting arrangements where the landlord uses the premises primarily as a place of residence.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 5 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the premises were used primarily as a place of residence by the landlord, which falls outside the scope of 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.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should consider whether the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies to their specific living arrangement.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.