Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5386696 — Boarding House
Decided 1 Mar 2026 · Published 1 Mar 2026 · Application 5386696
- Boarding House
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
G Barnett
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 Tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
- The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim and the application is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The tenant claims that they entered into a verbal tenancy agreement to rent a room in a house owned by the landlord. The tenant states that this right of occupation was in return for domestic duties, which included cooking and caring for the landlord’s cats while they were away. The tenant states the arrangement commenced 25 April 2021.
- In September 2023, the tenant relocated to another town. Upon leaving, the tenant states that the landlord gave permission to store items in a garage on the property. The tenant returned and collected some of the items but was unable to collect the remainder. On 19 August 2025, the tenant contacted the landlord and was advised that the items had been given to charity.
- The landlord denies that they entered in a tenancy agreement. They stated that the property has 5 bedrooms. That their partner had gone to reside in a rest home in another city. They had known the tenant for approximately 4 years and became aware that the tenant’s personal circumstances had changed and that they needed a temporary place to stay. They stated they offered the tenant a room. There was no rent, no bond, no conditions. The landlord stated that the tenant was welcome to stay as long as they needed.
- The landlord denied that the tenant undertook any domestic duties and recalls the tenant cooking a shared meal once or twice. While the tenant resided at the house they shared it with the landlord, with no demarcation of living areas except for their respective bedrooms. The landlord stated they visited their partner in the rest home weekly but could not reside with them.
- They stated that tenant sought a WINZ grant to relocate to another town. They accept that they had given the tenant permission to temporarily store items in the garage and was surprised they had not been moved, as they believed the grant had been made to facilitate this. The landlord states they had not heard from the tenant for over a year. The garage remained unlocked, and the tenant had been welcome to return and collect the items any time.
- The landlord states that around September 2025, a male whom they believed be the tenant’s former partner attended and removed items from the garage. It is unclear what exactly has happened to the remainder of the items.
- The tenant claims that the landlord has either disposed of, or allowed others without authority, to interfere with, the items, which they say is a breach of the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act).
- The issues in this case are: a. Whether the parties have entered into a residential tenancy agreement. b. If so, whether the arrangement was nevertheless one that was excluded from the Act. c. If not, whether the landlord breached provisions of the Act concerning the tenant’s property remaining at the premises after the tenancy had ended. Law
- Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies.
- Section 4 provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
- Section 2(1) of the Act 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 ‘premises,’ ‘residential premises,’ ‘tenancy,’ and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined in section 2(1) 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 2(1) defines rent as meaning any money, goods, services, or other valuable consideration in the nature of rent to be paid or supplied under a tenancy agreement by the tenant; but does not include any sum of money payable or paid by way of bond.
- Section 5 sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act.
- 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.
- Section 8 of the Act states that parties to excluded tenancies may nevertheless agree in writing that all or any of the provisions of this Act shall apply in respect of the tenancy.
- Section 10 of the Act 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. Analysis and decision
- There is no dispute that the property constitutes residential premises, nor that the landlord allowed the tenant to reside at the property. The issue is whether the right of occupation was granted in return for rent.
- Initially, the tenant claimed that they had been granted a right of occupation in return for domestic duties. This would have created a tenancy agreement, with the domestic duties constituting services in lieu of rent. The landlord denied that the right had been granted in return for a promise by the tenant to complete domestic duties.
- During their evidence, the tenant conceded that their right to occupy was not contingent on their providing domestic duties, and if they ceased to perform such duties, they would not have been required to vacate the property. This was agreed by the landlord.
- On the basis of this evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord granted a right of occupation in return for rent (services in lieu of rent) thereby creating an agreement within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The essential element of consideration is absent. No tenancy agreement as defined in section 2(1) exists.
- Had I been satisfied that there had been a tenancy agreement, it would have nevertheless been excluded under section 5(1)(n) of the Act, as the landlord clearly continued to use the premises principally as a place of residence. The agreement was oral, and there is no written evidence of an intention to contract back into the Act under section 8.
- The Tribunal therefore declines jurisdiction. Name suppression
- Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that their name or identifying particulars of that party not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
- The landlord has been wholly successful and is granted name suppression.
- Section 95A (4) further provides the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, may order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
- Although not wholly or substantially successful in these proceedings, the Tribunal has declined jurisdiction. While I am satisfied that the facts and reasoning are in the public interest, I do consider that this extends to the tenant’s name. Accordingly, I grant the tenant name suppression.