What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5234653 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5234653?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5234653?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5234653?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11910527-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5234653 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5234653?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5234653?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5234653?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11910527-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5234653 — Boarding House

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The applicant had requested that a Mandarin interpreter be made available. Unfortunately, through oversight, an interpreter had not been arranged.

After speaking with the parties, I took the view that it would be fair to determine today the preliminary question relating to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

I believe that the applicant was able to understand the discussion. The applicant had already confirmed a key issue, in reply to a question from Tenancy Services, when she advised, on 2 May 2025, “I confirm that during the tenancy, I lived in the same house as the landlord and we shared facilities such as kitchen, bathroom, and living areas.” That evidence weas confirmed by the tenant today.

The question for the Tribunal to consider is whether the arrangement between the parties is excluded from the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”) and therefore from the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal, by s.5(1)(n) RTA. That section provides that the RTA 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”

Here, the “premises” comprised the whole of the house occupied and shared by the applicant, others and also by the respondent ie. the applicant was not rented separate self contained premises. Those premises are principally used as the respondent’s residence.

It is not a boarding house because it was not, “.....occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time” (see. S.66B RTA).

It is possible for parties to agree in writing that the provisions of the RTA should apply anyway (s.8 RTA), but that did not happen here.

This was a boarding type situation which is excluded from the RTA by s.5(1)(n).

As noted at the hearing this is not a finding that the claims do or do not have merit, simply that any claim will need to be determined in another forum – presumably the Disputes Tribunal.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The applicant had requested that a Mandarin interpreter be made available. Unfortunately, through oversight, an interpreter had not been arranged.

After speaking with the parties, I took the view that it would be fair to determine today the preliminary question relating to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

It is not a boarding house because it was not, “.....occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time” (see. S.66B RTA).

It is possible for parties to agree in writing that the provisions of the RTA should apply anyway (s.8 RTA), but that did not happen here.

This was a boarding type situation which is excluded from the RTA by s.5(1)(n).

As noted at the hearing this is not a finding that the claims do or do not have merit, simply that any claim will need to be determined in another forum – presumably the Disputes Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5234653 — Boarding House

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5234653 — Boarding House

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions