Tenancy Tribunal Rules Lack of Jurisdiction Due to Premises Usage
📌 In brief
In this case, the Tenancy Tribunal decided it could not hear the tenant's claim for the return of bond money because the premises were primarily used by the landlord. The Tribunal ruled based on the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which excludes such cases from its jurisdiction.
⚖️ Legal holding
The Tenancy Tribunal cannot hear claims involving premises primarily used by the landlord.
📖 What the law says
This section lists specific situations where the Residential Tenancies Act does not apply. For example, it does not apply if the premises are commercial, or if 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 Tenancy Tribunal lacks jurisdiction due to the nature of the premises.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a claim involving a tenant seeking the return of bond money because the premises were primarily used by the landlord, thus falling outside the scope of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5185331 1
[2025] NZTT 5185331
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: Unit/[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. This application is struck out because the Tenancy Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear it.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing which was held by videoconference.
2. Ms [NAME] has made a claim against Ms [NAME] seeking a return of the bond money she paid when she commenced residing at 24 C [ADDRESS].
3. The first issue to be determined is whether the Tenancy Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear this claim.
4. The Tenancy Tribunal has the power to hear only matters that arise out of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Section 5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) specifically excludes the Tenancy Tribunal from hearing claims where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used during the tenancy principally as a place of residence by the landlord.
5. I find that the premises were used principally as a place of residence by the landlord in this case, even though she was overseas visiting family, during most of the time that the applicant was residing there. I consider it to be where the respondent lived, in spite of her visit overseas.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5185331 2
6. I also note that there was never any expectation that this was a matter which came under the auspices of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. There was an agreement entitled “Flat/House- sharing agreement”, with a specific reference to it not being covered by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. There was also another person living there who was also described as a flatmate and who signed the same agreement.
[NAME]
14 May 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5185331 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5185331 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 principally as a place of residence by the landlord.
- The agreement explicitly stated it was not covered by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Another person was also described as a flatmate and signed the same agreement.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant claimed for a return of bond money under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The expectation was that the matter would come under the auspices of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 lacked jurisdiction to hear the tenant's claim for the return of bond money.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about a tenant seeking the return of bond money paid when they started residing at the premises.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that it lacked jurisdiction because the premises were primarily used by the landlord, not as a rental property.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1, 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 by the landlord, making the case fall 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.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should check if their premises are primarily used by the landlord, as this could affect the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence that mattered included the nature of the premises usage and the agreement stating it was not covered by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.