Tenantcheck Insights

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 4827757 — Boarding House

Decided 17 Jul 2024 · Published 17 Jul 2024 · Application 4827757

Boarding House

Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

New Zealand

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

M Allan

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 4827757 — Boarding House

Decided 17 Jul 2024 · Published 17 Jul 2024 · Application 4827757

Boarding House

Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

New Zealand

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

M Allan

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Order

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction and accordingly the tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing today has been set down to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this matter. Both parties attended. A Mandarin interpreter, Mr Qiu, attended for the tenant.
The tenant moved into the property on 15 October 2023. Rent was $500 per week and the tenant paid a bond of $1500. However the tenant moved out at short notice on 2 November 2023 due to family circumstances. She seeks the refund of her bond.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not apply to all tenancies. Some tenancies are excluded.
Section 5(1)(n) of the RTA provides that the Act does not apply: 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
At the hearing both parties agreed that the landlord continued to live in the property during the tenancy. The property was a three bedroom house, and the tenant and her two daughters occupied two of the bedrooms. The third bedroom was occupied by the landlord.
The property continued to be used as a principal place of residence by the landlord and so this is an excluded tenancy. The RTA does not apply.
If the tenant wishes to continue her claim she will need to file an application in the Disputes Tribunal. She should include a copy of this order with any evidence filed in support of her claim.
I have suppressed both parties’ names pursuant to Section 95A RTA as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction and there is no public interest in the publication of the parties’ names.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Boarding House NO ADDRESS

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s5(1), s95A

Key findings

Dispute theme: boarding house

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4827757 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction and accordingly the tenant’s application

How much money was awarded in case 4827757?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4827757?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4827757?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10591782-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.