What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5120679?

The tribunal order states: This application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 5120679?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5120679?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5120679?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11510226-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5120679?

The tribunal order states: This application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 5120679?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5120679?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5120679?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11510226-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 28, 11 Harrison Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5120679 — Boarding House

Order

This application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

This is a decision on the papers.
This matter was scheduled before me on 21 February 2025 to decide jurisdiction.
Prior to the hearing, the applicant, sought an adjournment of the hearing because she was overseas.
I declined the adjournment but directed that the parties attendance was excused and that they make submissions in writing on the question of whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction. Jurisdiction Background
In their application, the applicant names Yuji Chen as the landlord.
The applicant claims among other things that the respondent, Yuji Chen, unlawfully entered her boarding room, and interfered with the applicant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy by opening the windows, the respondent permitted their brother to sleep in the living room, permitted their mother to live in the garage, and unlawfully terminated the applicant’s tenancy.
The tenancy agreement filed as evidence in this case is a boarding house tenancy agreement. The agreement names Connected & Present Limited as the landlord. The applicant and the respondent are both named as tenants.
The applicant states, however, that the respondent was a sublandlord. Legal principles
The long title of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states, among other things, it is a establish a Tribunal to determine disputes between landlords and tenants of residential properties: An Act to reform and restate the law relating to residential tenancies, to define the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants of residential properties, to establish a tribunal to determine expeditiously disputes arising between such landlords and tenants, to establish a fund in which bonds payable by such tenants are to be held, and to repeal the Tenancy Act 1955 and the Rent Appeal Act 1973 and their amendments
The RTA sets out the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the heading “Jurisdiction” at ss 77-85. Section 77(1) is the foundational subsection: 77 Jurisdiction of Tribunal (1) The Tribunal has, subject to the Limitation Act 2010, jurisdiction 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. (Emphasis added)
It follows, for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction to determine a dispute under s 77(1), there must be: a. a dispute must be between a landlord and a tenant (s 77(1)(a)); and b. the RTA must apply to the tenancy (s 77(1)(b)).
In s 2 of RTA “unless the context otherwise requires” the RTA applies the following meanings to tenant and tenancy: landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement... tenant, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under agreement... tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent ... (Emphasis added)
There is no getting out of the Act if there is a residential tenancy. Section 4 of the RTA provides that: This Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.
Consonant with s 4, s 11 of the RTA provides that an agreement to exclude the Act is “of no effect”. 1

Was the respondent a sublandlord?

The applicant submits: 2 Yuji Chen and Huilan Xia became WeChat friends on August 26, 2024. We confirmed the room reservation with a deposit on August 22th and moved in on August 25th. Both parties agreed that the rent would start from September 1st. Huilan Xia has provided all payment records as evidence to support this. Huilan Xia has consistently paid the rent on time to Yuji Chen.
The respondent does not dispute that applicant paid their rent to them. Nonetheless, they maintain that they were not the applicant’s landlord.
It is the substance of the arrangement that matters. It does not matter what labels parties attach to themselves. Therefore, if the respondent were the landlord, it would not matter that they were described in the tenancy agreement as a “tenant”. As District Court Judge Neave commented in this context: 3 [T]he labels that the parties give to the arrangement will not and cannot be determinative. It will always be necessary to examine the full facts of the situation and determine what the substance of the arrangement was.
The applicant further submitted: 1 There are limited exceptions set out in s 11 that do not apply here. 2 Email to the Tribunal dated 20 February 2025. 3 In Watson v Watson DC Christchurch CIV-2020-009-2030, 14 September 2010 at [9]. It was Yuji Chen who rented the entire property (28/11Harrison Road ), which then led to the subsequent residents Therefore, she acted as a sublandlord. All of our rental payments were made to Yuji Chen. The legal primary residents of the room are •Yuji Chen •Silu Huang •Mr. Qin, •Huilan Xia and Wenxuan Zhang.
At a later point, the applicant describes the respondent as a “co-tenant”: 4 Later, on December 21, Yuji Chen’s mother mentioned that 5 aunts would be coming to the house for dinner the following week. I descripted the situation to Mr. Qin, who lives with me, and asked for his advice. He expressed disapproval of Yuji Chen and her family’s behavior. Therefore, I politely approached Yuji Chen as a co-tenant
Having read the file, I cannot find a sound evidential basis to find that the respondent was the applicant’s landlord. Rather, the evidence points to the parties being co-tenants.
The tenancy agreement – which is a contemporaneous document created prior to this dispute - records the parties as both being tenants. The fact that the applicant paid their rent to the respondent is neither here not there. Flatmates will commonly pay rent to one person, such as a “head tenant” who then on- pays the entire rent to the landlord.
The Tribunal’s role is to decide cases between landlords and tenants; not disputes between flatmates. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear flatmate-against-flatmate claims.
I am satisfied that the parties were flatmates. Therefore, the Tribunal does not have the power to hear the application.
However, if I am wrong in finding that the parties are flatmates, I go on to consider if the respondent were a sublandlord or landlord whether the tenancy is excluded by s 5(1)(n) of the RTA. If the respondent were a landlord, is the tenancy excluded by s 5(1)(n)?
Section 5 of the RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Under s 5(1)(n), the RTA “shall not apply”: (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... 4 See n 2.
The applicant’s claim is in essence that the respondent and the respondent’s family dominated the premises. The applicant’s own allegations are that they used the premises as a place of residence to the exclusion of the applicant.
It follows, even if the respondent were the landlord or the sublandlord, the claim would be excluded. Conclusion
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim. It is dismissed.
I note 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.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5120679 — Boarding House at Flat 28, 11 Harrison Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5120679 — Boarding House at Flat 28, 11 Harrison Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the respondent a sublandlord?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the respondent a sublandlord?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions