Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5512991 — Boarding House
Decided 9 Jul 2026 · Published 9 Jul 2026 · Application 5512991
- 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
R Harvey-Lane
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 landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details.
- The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing initially. The applicant had the assistance of an interpreter. The respondent attended very briefly and then had to leave the hearing to attend to urgent personal matters and the hearing proceeded in her absence.
- The applicant has applied for a refund of her bond and compensation related to overpaid rent. Jurisdiction
- The first question I need to determine is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine this matter.
- The applicant moved into the property in around March 2026 and rented a room at the tenancy address. No tenancy agreement or other documentation has been provided detailing the arrangement.
- The applicant believed that the respondent was the owner of the property, however, at the commencement of the hearing the respondent advised that she was the sole leaseholder (head tenant).
- The premises consisted of two-bedrooms, and during the tenancy the respondent resided in one bedroom and the applicant occupied the other room. They both shared the common areas.
- The applicant believed that this was a tenancy. However, the respondent submitted that this is not an arrangement governed by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and it was instead a flatmate or private arrangement. The law
- Section 77(1) of the RTA provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants related to any tenancy to which the RTA applies.
- However, section 5(1)(n) of the RTA states that the RTA does not apply where the premises (not being a boarding house) are used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or owner.
- In this case, the evidence shows that the respondent lived at the property throughout the arrangement, and both parties shared the common facilities. This indicates a flatmate or house sharing arrangement, rather than a tenancy to which the RTA applies. The Tribunal must consider the substance of the arrangement, not just the label used by the parties.
- As the arrangement is excluded from the RTA under section 5(1)(n), the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the claim.
- The application is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- I have on my own accord granted name suppression to both parties. I consider this appropriate in the context of the Tribunal failing to have jurisdiction to determine the matter. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 09 July 2026