Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5438937 — Boarding House
Decided 22 Jun 2026 · Published 22 Jun 2026 · Application 5438937
- 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
B Smallbone
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 claim is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The matter has previously been heard in the Disputes Tribunal. Because the claim involves a residential tenancy, the Disputes Tribunal referee ordered that he/she did not have jurisdiction to determine if this residential tenancy was one which was excluded from the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). It is the Tenancy Tribunal who has exclusive jurisdiction to make that determination.
- Having heard from the parties I am satisfied that section 5(n) of the RTA applies. Section 5(n) provides that the RTA is excluded: “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”
- In the present case the four bedroom premises was principally used by the owner/landlord. The tenant used one bedroom, had access to the lounge and kitchen and stored some goods in the garage. The landlord used the other three bedrooms, an ensuite, parked a car in the garage and used the areas that the tenant used, except for her bedroom.
- Therefore the RTA does not apply to this tenancy and the application is struck out. This decision means that the applicant could go back to the Disputes Tribunal for a decision. However after discussing the matter with the parties, they reached the following settlement of the claim. The respondent will pay the applicant $200.00 in settlement of all matters raised in the claim. Payment will be to his bank account today. Name Suppression
- The Tribunal may, on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (s.95A(4).
- There is no public interest regarding this case that requires publication of the parties’ names.