Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5394181 — Boarding House
Decided 27 Jan 2026 · Published 27 Jan 2026 · Application 5394181
- 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
K Stirling
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 Tenant and the Landlord name and identifying details.
- The Tribunal declares that the tenancy is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) because the parties were at all material times flatmates and the exemption in section 5(1)(n) RTA applies.
Reasons
- The applicant tenant attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the respondent landlord. The applicant seeks refund of his bond and rent paid in advance to the respondent following the end of the tenancy.
- A preliminary issue of jurisdiction has arisen in that the Tribunal may not have jurisdiction to hear the claim because of section 5(1)(n) RTA which provides that the RTA does not apply in the following case: “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 2 RTA provides that: landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement; and 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;
- In this case, the applicant replied to an advertisement for a room to let placed on Facebook marketplace by the respondent. As far as the applicant is aware, the respondent does not own the premises but was living there at the time. The applicant viewed the premises and agreed to let the room and pay the respondent weekly rent of $150. An initial payment of $300 for 2 weeks rent in advance and a bond of $450 was also agreed and paid by the applicant to the respondent. No document was signed by the parties setting out the terms of the tenancy.
- The applicant moved in on or about 29 September 2025. The respondent also lived at the premises and they shared use of all the common areas including kitchen and bathroom. At some point the respondent found a third tenant and the respondent moved into the lounge and used it as his bedroom.
- On or about 20 November 2025, the applicant says that the respondent assaulted him over late rent and the Police were called. The applicant moved out and seeks to recover his bond and rent paid in advance.
- I am satisfied on the evidence that the respondent meets the definition of “landlord” and granted the applicant a tenancy of the premises. However, it is also clear on the evidence that the premises are not a boarding house and the respondent as landlord (or a sublandlord) was using the premises principally as a place of residence. In other words, the exemption in s 5(1)(n) RTA applies with the arrangement between the applicant and the respondent being that of flatmates. Therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s claim.
- As discussed at the hearing, the applicant’s remedy is to pursue a claim against the respondent in the Disputes Tribunal.
- Given my finding that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction, it is appropriate to suppress the name and identifying details of both parties.