Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5391702 — Boarding House
Decided 12 Mar 2026 · Published 12 Mar 2026 · Application 5391702
- 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
H Ben Fayed
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 the tenants and the landlords name and identifying details.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The parties signed an agreement for the applicant to rent a room in the respondents home. The applicant paid a deposit/bond but was not able to commence the tenancy because her grandmother was injured and needed to look after her. The applicant seeks return of the deposit/bond.
- Section 4 of the RTA 1986 provides that: This Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.
- The exceptions to the RTA are contained in Section 5. Relevantly, section 5(1)(n) of the Act provides that: 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.
- It is not disputed that this arrangement was for a single room that was in the respondents home where she resides with her children. As such per the s5(1)(n) exception the RTA 1986 does not apply.
- The appropriate forum for this dispute is the Disputes Tribunal.
- I do not consider there to be any public interest in this decision and conversely there could be negative impact on the parties if their details are published. Accordingly, I have made orders suppressing both parties details per section 95A(4) of the RTA 1986.