Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5336582 — Boarding House
Decided 19 Mar 2026 · Published 19 Mar 2026 · Application 5336582
- Boarding House
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
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
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants and Landlords names and identifying details.
- The application is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The Tenant has applied for compensation.
- The Landlord submitted, this was not a tenancy agreement and therefore the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not apply.
- There is a preliminary issue whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
- Section 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. The terms ’residential premises’, ‘tenancy’, and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined as: residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises; and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement
- Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Section 10 RTA provides that, where a party to proceedings contends that the Act does not apply, they must establish the facts supporting their contention. In other words, they have the burden of proving the Act does not apply.
- Section 5(1)(n) 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
- When determining whether the Act is excluded, the Tribunal considers the substance of the agreement between the parties rather than the labels they have applied.
- In Harding v Schellevis, Tan and Caroto [2021] NZHC 1265, the High Court considered whether the occupants of a ‘granny flat’ situated within a larger dwelling were boarders or tenants. The upper level of the dwelling had four bedrooms, a kitchen, bathrooms and a living area. The family also used a living room, garage and laundry downstairs. The ground floor also had a separate granny flat comprising two bedrooms, a kitchenette, bathroom, laundry and living room.
- The granny flat had been previously rented as a separate dwelling. However, in 2015 the Council advised the owner that, due to the lack of a firewall, it could not be tenanted separately. From that time on the owner entered into house- sharing agreements.
- The granny flat had a separate entrance, a dedicated parking area, and an area outside for the occupants’ exclusive use. Water and power were included in the rent and the occupants arranged their own internet. The landlord could only enter the granny flat for inspections, repairs and viewings for new tenants. The occupants had no right of entry to the rest of the house.
- The High Court said the critical issue was whether the ‘premises’ referred to in s 5(1)(n) were just the granny flat, or the dwelling as a whole including the granny flat. It found that the relevant premises were the granny flat and not the entire dwelling. It gave several reasons:
- The natural meaning of premises contemplates more than one premises within larger premises.
- The statutory definition of premises includes “any part of any premises”.
- The RTA supports a generous approach to jurisdiction and a strict approach to exceptions.
- The right to occupy did not include any areas used by the landlord or her family. There were no shared or common use areas. The landlord could only enter the flat with notice and for the limited purposes in the agreement.
- The self-contained nature of the granny flat was decisive in Harding. Even where there is some shared use of facilities, such as a toilet or shower, the RTA may still apply to a largely self-contained dwelling. This is because a tenancy agreement can include facilities provided for the non-exclusive use of the tenant.
Is there a tenancy agreement between the parties?
- The Landlord submits that the living arrangement was merely a boarding agreement and not subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 because the Landlord lived in the premises. There was also no written tenancy agreement, no separate water or electricity metres and the Landlord imposed certain house rules. The Landlords intention from the outset was to rent out the room to the Tenant as a boarder.
- The Tenant submitted this was a tenancy agreement. She occupied a separate, self-contained unit within the Landlords property. She had her own private entrance, and her living space comprised a bedroom, kitchenette, and lounge. There were no shared living areas: she had no access to the Landlord’s part of the house, and the Landlord likewise had no access to hers. The premises were advertised as a granny flat, reinforcing the understanding that this was an independent dwelling.
- In considering the evidence, I find this is more likely than not, a tenancy agreement. The Tenant enjoyed exclusive possession of a defined area of the property, lived independently, and was not integrated into the Landlord’s household in the manner typical of a boarding situation. The absence of a structural separation or a formal written agreement does not outweigh these substantive features. Claim for compensation for emotional stress and hurt
- The Tenant has claimed $1,680.00 as compensation for emotional stress and distress caused by the Landlord’s conduct. She states that the Landlord repeatedly intruded her quiet enjoyment by standing on her verandah, speaking loudly, knocking on her door when she had visitors, and attempting to control or restrict those visitors through threats of terminating the tenancy. In support of her claim, the Tenant provided photographs showing the Landlord’s shoes left at her doorstep, as well as text messages in which the Landlord sought to limit the number of visitors she could have.
- The Landlord opposed this claim and submitted that clear rules regarding visitors were established at the outset of the arrangement and accepted by the Tenant. They submit that the Tenant frequently breached these agreed conditions by having visitors over on a regular basis, resulting in excessive noise that caused significant distress to elderly members of the Landlord’s household.
- While I accept that the Tenant experienced stress arising from the Landlord’s conduct, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award compensation is limited. Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, compensation is generally confined to actual, financial loss resulting from a proven breach. Emotional distress, in the absence of accompanying financial loss, does not fall within the scope of compensable damage under the Act. There was no evidence provided by the Tenant of financial loss.
- Accordingly, although the Tenant’s concerns are acknowledged, the claim for compensation in the sum of $1,680.00 is dismissed.
- As the parties have both been substantially successful in their claims, name suppression is granted to both parties.