Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5470691 — Boarding House
Decided 1 May 2026 · Published 1 May 2026 · Application 5470691
- 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
- The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
- The application is dismissed.
Reasons
- Ms Partridge appeared for the applicant by video. There was no appearance by the respondent.
- On 17 March 2026, the landlord made an application for expedited abandonment on the grounds that the tenant had abandoned the property on or about 11 November 2025.
- Expedited abandonment is a process under section 91AA of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act) that allows certain landlord applications for abandonment of premises to be fast-tracked and determined "on the papers," meaning without the need for a hearing.
- On 07 April 2026, the Tribunal declined expedited abandonment and directed that the matter be scheduled for a hearing.
- At paragraph 5 of the decision the Tribunal stated: “I am not satisfied that both conditions for the expedited process are met. The application appears to be only about a car park rental. The agreement provided by the landlord is entitled “Car Park Tenancy Agreement” and only relates to rental of a car park. The rent summary provided appears to relate only to rent for the car park alone. There is no other information provided about whether this application is made in relation to a residential tenancy or whether there are any allegations that the tenant has abandoned the property that might be the subject of a residential tenancy. There are no inspection reports or photographs provided either. The information provided by the landlord with this application is not sufficient to enable the Tribunal to determine it properly without a hearing.”
- The property is a car park garage in a unit complex. Ms Partridge said that the applicant “inherited” the agreement from another property management company around 11 November 2024. She stated that the applicant does not know much about the respondent and there is no signed agreement. Ms Partridge does not know if the garage was originally attached to, or included in, a tenancy agreement for one of the units in the complex. She advised that rent stopped being paid, and on 11 November 2025, the applicant visited the garage and found the lock had been cut off. She says the garage is full of clothing and other items. There are no photographs of the garage. Law
- Section 4 of the Act states that the provisions of the Act apply to every tenancy for residential purposes.
- Section 2(1) of the Act defines: ▪ 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. ▪ Premises includes (other than in relation to a boarding house tenancy, in which case the definition in section 66B applies)— (a) any part of any premises; and (b) any land and appurtenances, other than facilities; and (c) any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land. ▪ Residential premises as any premises used or intended to be used 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 lawful.
- The definition of residential premises means that for the provisions of the Act to apply, the premises must be used, or intended to be used, as a place where someone lives. The focus is on the actual or intended use of the premises for living purposes, not just the label given to the property, or the type of building see Harding v Schellevis, Tan and Caroto [2021] NZHC 1265. Analysis and decision
- The issue in this case is jurisdiction.
- The agreement, which is unsigned, is titled “Car park tenancy agreement.” The rent for the space was $30.00 per week paid fortnightly in advance, and either party could terminate the agreement with one month’s notice.
- There is no evidence that the parties intended the respondent to live in the garage, nor any evidence that the garage was used for residential purposes. On the evidence, the garage appears to have been used solely for storage.
- There is also no evidence that the garage formed part of, or was attached to, any other premises the subject of a residential tenancy agreement.
- Accordingly, the premises do not meet the definition of residential premises. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction and the application is dismissed. Name suppression
- Section 95A (4) of the Act 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.
- The Tribunal has declined jurisdiction. While I am satisfied that the facts and reasoning are in the public interest, I do not consider that this interest necessarily extends to the names of the parties. Accordingly, I order suppression of the party’s names and address of the property.