Tenancy Tribunal Struck Out Claim for Lack of Jurisdiction
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a landlord's claim against a social housing provider for water rates arrears, ruling that the tenancy agreement was excluded from the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenancy agreement that is genuinely entered into to provide accommodation for social housing purposes is excluded from the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's claim was struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal struck out the claim for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the tenancy agreement was excluded from the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as it was genuinely entered into to provide accommodation for social housing purposes.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5473946 1
[2026] NZTT 5473946
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The claim is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Reasons:
2. Both parties attended the hearing.
3. The applicant, [NAME_1], seeks payment of water rates arrears from the respondent, [COMPANY_2].
4. The parties entered into a Deed of Lease dated 23 October 2018. Under that Deed, the lessor granted the [NAME_4] the right to occupy and use the premises for residential [NAME_3] purposes and to enter into residential tenancy agreements with individuals who would personally reside at the property.
5. It is accepted that [COMPANY_2] is a social [NAME_3] provider. The Trust does not lease the premises for its own residential occupation. Rather, it leases the property for the purpose of providing accommodation to sub-tenants as part of its social [NAME_3] operations.
6. Before considering the substantive claim, I must determine whether the Deed of Lease falls within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 ("the Act").
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5473946 2
7. Section 5(1)(s) of the Act provides that the Act does not apply where a tenancy agreement is genuinely entered into to enable a tenant (the sub-landlord) to sublet the premises in order to provide accommodation for, among others, [NAME_3], [NAME_5], or persons whose disabilities require support or supervision in their [NAME_3]. The exclusion applies where the agreement is not entered into to provide accommodation for the sub- landlord personally or to evade the provisions of the Act, and where the agreement expressly provides that the sub-landlord will not personally occupy the premises.
8. The evidence before me establishes that [COMPANY_2] leased the premises for the purpose of providing social [NAME_3] to persons falling within the categories contemplated by section 5(1)(s). The Trust was not granted possession of the premises for its own occupation and does not personally reside at the property. The arrangement was genuinely entered into for the provision of social [NAME_3] through sub-tenancies.
9. I therefore find, on its face, that the Deed of Lease is an excluded tenancy under section 5(1)(s) of the Act. Accordingly, the Residential Tenancies Act does not apply unless the parties have subsequently contracted back into the Act pursuant to section 8.
10. Section 8 of the Act permits parties to an excluded tenancy to agree that the Act will apply to their tenancy. Such an agreement must clearly demonstrate an intention that the Act govern the tenancy relationship and that the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine disputes arising under it.
11. I have considered the terms of the Deed of Lease to determine whether the parties contracted back into the Act. I find no provision expressly stating that the Residential Tenancies Act applies notwithstanding the exclusion created by section 5(1)(s), nor any provision expressly conferring jurisdiction upon the Tenancy Tribunal.
12. [NAME_1] relies on clause 42 of the Deed, which provides:
"Residential Tenancy Act 1986: Subject to the terms and covenants expressed in this lease, if a provision is not contained in this lease, then Residential Tenancies Act 1986 shall apply."
13. In my view, clause 42 is insufficient to contract the parties back into the Act for the purposes of section 8. The clause does not identify any specific provisions of the Act that are to apply. Nor does it expressly provide that the tenancy is to be governed by the Act despite the exclusion contained in section 5(1)(s). Most importantly, it does not confer jurisdiction upon the Tenancy Tribunal to hear and determine disputes arising under the Deed.
14. The clause appears instead to operate as a gap-filling provision intended to supplement the contractual terms of the lease where the parties have not
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5473946 3
otherwise addressed a particular matter. Such wording falls short of the clear and unequivocal agreement required to bring an otherwise excluded tenancy within the scope of the Act.
15. I also note that the Deed of Lease contains provisions identifying the anticipated forum for dispute resolution between the parties. Those provisions contemplate that disputes arising under the Deed are to be determined through the Disputes Tribunal. This is consistent with the parties having understood that their arrangement fell outside the Residential Tenancies Act and outside the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
16. As the tenancy is excluded from the Residential Tenancies Act and the parties have not contracted back into the Act, the Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear or determine the applicant's claim.
H Ben Fayed 14 June 2026
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5473946 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, 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 [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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5473946 5
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:
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal struck out the claim for lack of jurisdiction.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about a landlord's claim for unpaid water rates against a social housing provider.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the Tenancy Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the tenancy agreement was excluded from the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 5(1)(s) was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the tenancy agreement was genuinely entered into to provide accommodation for social housing purposes.
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 tenancy agreement is excluded from the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included the terms of the Deed of Lease and the purpose of the tenancy agreement.
