Tenantcheck Insights

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5166572 — Boarding House

Decided 28 Mar 2025 · Published 28 Mar 2025 · Application 5166572

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 5166572 — Boarding House

Decided 28 Mar 2025 · Published 28 Mar 2025 · Application 5166572

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 orders suppression of both the landlord and tenant’s names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s]must pay [The tenant/s] $548.58 immediately, being overpaid rent during the tenancy.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This was a very short boarding house tenancy. The tenant left the tenancy after nine days.
The parties agreed that the tenant had overpaid rent but disagreed on the amount that should be refunded. The difference was due to disagreement between the parties as to when the tenant had given notice to end the tenancy.
After discussing matters at the hearing the parties agreed that the landlord would refund to the tenant the sum of $548.58. I have therefore made orders for the payment of this amount by consent.
The tenant gave the landlord details of his bank account number for payment at the hearing. The landlord advised that, due to the person who makes payments on behalf of the landlord being away, the payment might not be made for two to three days. The tenant accepted this.
As the parties have reached agreement on all matters the Tribunal has not made any determination and has instead made orders by consent. In the circumstances I do not consider that there is any public interest in publication of the parties’ names. I have therefore exercised my discretion pursuant to section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to suppress both parties’ names and identifying details.

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

s95A

Key findings

Dispute theme: boarding house

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5166572 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both the landlord and tenant’s names and

How much money was awarded in case 5166572?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5166572?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5166572?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11644436-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

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 orders suppression of both the landlord and tenant’s names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s]must pay [The tenant/s] $548.58 immediately, being overpaid rent during the tenancy.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This was a very short boarding house tenancy. The tenant left the tenancy after nine days.
The parties agreed that the tenant had overpaid rent but disagreed on the amount that should be refunded. The difference was due to disagreement between the parties as to when the tenant had given notice to end the tenancy.
After discussing matters at the hearing the parties agreed that the landlord would refund to the tenant the sum of $548.58. I have therefore made orders for the payment of this amount by consent.
The tenant gave the landlord details of his bank account number for payment at the hearing. The landlord advised that, due to the person who makes payments on behalf of the landlord being away, the payment might not be made for two to three days. The tenant accepted this.
As the parties have reached agreement on all matters the Tribunal has not made any determination and has instead made orders by consent. In the circumstances I do not consider that there is any public interest in publication of the parties’ names. I have therefore exercised my discretion pursuant to section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to suppress both parties’ names and identifying details.

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

s95A

Key findings

Dispute theme: boarding house

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5166572 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both the landlord and tenant’s names and

How much money was awarded in case 5166572?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5166572?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5166572?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11644436-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.