Tribunal tosses Taiwanese Hwa Hsia Society rent claim over storage shed

The Tenancy Tribunal has thrown out an application by the Taiwanese Hwa Hsia Society, saying it doesn't have jurisdiction to hear the case. Photo / 123RF

When is a shed a house?

Specifically, a small, metal prefabricated shed without a working toilet, kitchen, or running water, and filled with boxes, that has sat on the Taiwanese Hwa Hsia Society’s Auckland property since 2023.

I-Hua (Eva) Chen started leasing a space for her “tiny house” or “cabin” on the Great South Rd property in November 2023 for $84 a week.

But payments ceased after a fortnight, resulting in arrears of $6852.

The society, which was set up to promote social, cultural, and educational exchange between Taiwanese residents and New Zealanders, now insists the “tiny house” or “cabin” has no place on its Ōtāhuhu site and sought an order from the Tenancy Tribunal terminating the alleged tenancy and seeking to recover thousands of dollars in rent arrears it says it’s owed.

But the shed’s owner disputes that there was ever a residential tenancy relationship. Instead, Chen argued the structure was a storage shed, not a dwelling, and therefore fell outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Ultimately, the tribunal agreed.

According to the tribunal’s recently released decision, the society terminated the tenancy last August and issued a demand for unpaid rent, giving Chen 30 days to remove the structure and clear the arrears.

But Chen insisted the “cabin” had never been used, or was intended to be used as a residence, and was instead used solely for storage purposes.

To support her claims, Chen provided photographs of the shed on the society’s property showing the small metal-clad unit filled with boxes and storage items, a non-functional toilet, and no visible kitchen, plumbing, or water connections.

In his decision, adjudicator Michael Kan found that regardless of whether the structure was described as a shed, a cabin, or a tiny house, the key question was whether the structure constituted “residential premises” under the Residential Tenancies Act.

In dismissing the claim, Kan ruled the structure was a shed used for storage, not a “residential premises” as defined under the act. Therefore, it fell outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

He also denied the society’s request for name suppression, saying there was public interest in publishing the parties’ names, as this appeared to be an internal matter between members of the society that should never have been brought before the tribunal. Instead, he suggested the Disputes Tribunal was a more appropriate forum.

It was also important that the public understood that the tribunal didn’t have jurisdiction to hear or determine matters that didn’t fall within the definition of “residential premises” under the act, he said.

Catherine Hutton is an Open Justice reporter, based in Wellington. She has worked as a journalist at the Waikato Times and RNZ. Most recently, she was working as a media adviser at the Ministry of Justice.