Tenancy Tribunal Rules Lack of Jurisdiction Over Landlord Residing With Tenant
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over a dispute involving a landlord residing in the same premises as the tenant. The Tribunal noted that the Residential Tenancies Act excludes such arrangements from its jurisdiction.
⚖️ Legal holding
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over disputes arising from a landlord residing in the premises with the tenant.
📖 What the law says
This section lists specific situations where the Residential Tenancies Act does not apply. For example, it does not cover commercial properties, premises used for farming where a tenant's income largely comes from that use, or parts of prisons or hospitals.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over disputes involving a landlord residing in the premises with the tenant.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over a dispute involving a landlord residing in the same premises as the tenant. The Tribunal noted that the Residential Tenancies Act excludes such arrangements from its jurisdiction.
📚 Full judgment Official document
4465680 1
[2025] NZTT 5120128
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT [Event location suppressed]
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Claimed Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Claimed Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [Tenancy address suppressed]
ORDER
1. The tribunal orders suppression of all names and identifying details.
2. By way of declaration, it is noted that the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the relationship or agreement between the parties.
3. The application is struck out.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted via teleconference.
2. This hearing was convened to consider jurisdiction.
3. The tenancy formed via a signed House sharing agreement and commenced 12 August 2024. There was an agreement titled “Rental agreement (room)”. The copy provided to the Tribunal was not signed by either of the parties. The respondent is recorded as the “owner”.
4. The applicant confirmed that, “I am writing to confirm that the landlord resides at the tenancy address along with his wife and two children. Additionally, I shared the bathroom, toilet, and kitchen facilities with them.”
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5120128 2
Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction?
5. The Tribunal’s general jurisdiction, under s77(1) of the RTA is
to: “…determine in accordance with this Act any dispute
that—
(a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and
the guarantor of a tenant; and
(b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time.”
6. Section 2 RTA provides that a “landlord” and “tenant” are respectively grantor and grantee of a tenancy.
“…tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment…”
rent, means any money, goods, services, or other valuable consideration in the nature of rent to be paid or supplied under a tenancy agreement by the tenant; but does not include any sum of money payable or paid by way of bond”
7. Section 5 of the RTA details exclusions to the RTA. Section 5(n) specifically excludes arrangements where the premises are being used for residence by the landlord or family. This section envisages owners of a home renting out their spare rooms in a flatmate or boarding type situation.
8. The exception to this exception is if the premise is a boarding house. A boarding house is defined in section 66B of the RTA as residential premises containing one or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants of the boarding house that is occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least six tenants at any one time. This is clearly not a boarding house situation as there was no intention or actuality of the landlords having six other flatmates/boarders at any one time.
9. A ‘flatmate’ resides in the premises by way of a licence from the owner of the premises In Musson v Dobrisek & Ors DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006-032-36, 5 May 2006, Judge Broadmore considered the definition of a flatmate. He states (at para [22]: “By ‘flatmates’ I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, all occupants are on the same footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens.”
10. As discussed at the hearing, having considered this situation I am satisfied that it clearly falls within the exception detailed in s 5(n) of the RTA. This is the
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5120128 3
landlords’ home, and they rented out the spare room to the tenant to reside in for a period. Accordingly, this was a boarding or flatmate arrangement, which is not one the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction over. Therefore, if the tenant wishes to progress her claim, she needs to file an application in the Disputes Tribunal.
Suppression
11. Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to suppress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion if in the applicant or public interest to do so. The tenant sought suppression in their application and although they were not successful, as the application was genuinely mistakenly filed, I consider it just to suppress the identifying details.
Settlement
4. The parties are not far about in agreeing how to settle this dispute. They are encouraged to seek to conclude that, otherwise the Disputes Tribunal will be the obvious pathway from here.
[NAME] 17 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5120128 4
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.
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].
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/
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The Tenancy Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over disputes involving landlords who reside in the premises with tenants.
- The arrangement where the landlord lives in the premises with the tenant falls under the exclusion clause in section 5(n) of the RTA.
- The case involves a situation where the landlord rented out a spare room while living in the same premises, which is considered a flatmate arrangement.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The applicant claimed the Tenancy Tribunal should have jurisdiction over the dispute involving the landlord residing in the premises.
- The application sought resolution of a dispute based on the assumption that the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction over landlord-tenant relationships where the landlord lives on-site.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over the dispute involving a landlord residing in the same premises as the tenant.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the Tenancy Tribunal had jurisdiction over a situation where the landlord lived in the same premises as the tenant.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that it lacked jurisdiction because the Residential Tenancies Act excludes situations where the landlord lives in the same premises as the tenant.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 5(n) was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the Residential Tenancies Act excludes disputes involving a landlord residing in the same premises as the tenant.
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 ruled it lacked jurisdiction over the dispute.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, the Disputes Tribunal would be the appropriate venue to pursue the claim.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence and documents related to the nature of the tenancy agreement and the living situation of the landlord and tenant mattered.