Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5488711 — Boarding House
Decided 5 Jun 2026 · Published 5 Jun 2026 · Application 5488711
- 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 Koller
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 names and identifying details.
- The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the application.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. I will refer to the parties as the owner and the occupant. The occupant had a representative with him at the hearing.
- The owner has applied to the Tribunal for an order ending the tenancy because of rent arears. She has also issued a 90 day notice. The occupant is her late husband’s brother.
- There is a preliminary issue whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
- Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides that the Act shall 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 2 RTA defines a member of the owner’s family as any person who is or has been related to the owner by blood, or through marriage, a civil union, or a de facto relationship, or by adoption. I find the owner and the occupant are related through marriage. This does not change because of the death of the husband/brother because the definition includes people who have been related through marriage.
- The occupant has been living at the premises for around 30 years. He and his brother had an arrangement that informally recognised their different roles and expertise. The rent was $10,000 paid in a lump sum once a year. The occupant said he did not consider himself to be a tenant because he paid a reduced rent and sometimes acted as the property manager for the other two flats in the building. It seems most likely to me that the occupant still lives in the premises and pays a lower rent because he is family.
- Section 8 RTA provides that, where the Act is excluded by section 5, if the premises are used for residential purposes, the parties can contract back into some or all of the provisions of the RTA. This is done by signing an agreement that details the rent and grants the other person a tenancy of the premises. The parties have never signed a tenancy agreement, or agreed the RTA should apply to their living situation.
- I find the parties are family and they have not contracted back into the RTA. I find there is no jurisdiction to hear the owner’s application. This means the owner cannot use the law under the RTA to issue a 90 day notice.
- There is an application for suppression. I find this is a family matter and there is no public interest in the names. See section 95A RTA.