Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5470269 — Boarding House at Room 2, 17 Norwood Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019
Published 14 April 2026 · Application 5470269
Dismissed
- Boarding House
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Dismissed
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
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 application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing which took place by videoconference. The applicant Ms Wu attended and was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter arranged by the Court. The respondent was represented by Mr Oliver Ng-Daly who attended on behalf of his mother Kim Lan Ng who is the executor of Mr Moore’s estate.
- The applicant stated that she is seeking return of her bond and compensation for wrongful eviction.
- The respondent claimed that there is no jurisdiction in this matter.
- Before proceeding further, the Tribunal must determine the issue of jurisdiction.
- The applicant rented a room from the respondent and has lived at the premises for several years.
- The owner Peter Moore also lived at the premises.
- There were also two other occupants at the premises at the time of Mr Moore’s death.
- Sadly, Mr Moore passed away in February/March 2026.
- The home was owned by Mr Moore and was his place of residence. The utilities are in the name of the respondent and were paid by him.
- Each occupant had their own private bedroom with Mr Moore’s bedroom having an ensuite. The living areas including two bathrooms, kitchen, living room, garage/laundry area were shared.
- There is no signed agreement between the parties.
- The applicant claimed that the arrangement was a landlord/tenant arrangement on the basis that she had a private room and paid a bond of $480.00 and weekly rent of $120.00.
- As there is no documentation it is difficult to know when the arrangement commenced. The applicant stated that she found out about the premises from another occupant through WeChat and has lived there for eight years, however, the application states that the arrangement began in December 2019. It is accepted that the applicant has lived at the premises for some years.
- The respondent claimed that the arrangement was an informal boarding arrangement and/or that it was excluded pursuant to section 5 (1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as the premises continued to be used during the tenancy principally as a place of residence by the owner.
- The applicant was overseas when Mr Moore passed away and returned to New Zealand to discover that she had been evicted from the premises.
- It is accepted that there are other issues in this matter as both parties have accused the other of removing goods that do not belong to them. The parties have referred these matters to the Police.
Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?
- The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine any dispute that exists between a landlord and a tenant and relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies. See section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
- In considering whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction I must ask:
Are the parties in a landlord/tenant relationship?
Are these premises a boarding house? If not, are these premises excluded by section 5(1)(n)?
Are the parties in a landlord/tenant relationship?
- I have carefully considered the evidence of both parties and find that the parties are not in landlord/tenant relationship for the following reasons: (a)There is no written tenancy agreement between the parties. (b)There is no written evidence proving a bond was paid or the agreed amount of weekly rent. (c)The applicant had a private room at the premises and the rest of the premises was shared with the owner and other occupants. (d)The applicant provided a rent summary for the months 2025 to early 2026 recording weekly rent of $120 paid. This rent summary was prepared by the tenant and did not match the bank statements provided by the tenant for the same period which showed irregular ad hoc payments to Mr Moore for different amounts ranging from as low as $4.00 to $400.00. The applicant stated by way of explanation that the rent was sometimes paid in cash. She stated that the irregular payments to Mr Moore were to reimburse him when he bought food or takeaways for her. (e)The applicant provided a screenshot of a message from June 2023 when she has stated “Sry to forget to pay for my rent” and a reply stating “It’s ok not so lucky this week maybe next week haha”. This message suggests an informal relationship rather than a contractual relationship. (f)The applicant went overseas from time to time and left her cat in the care of Mr Moore. She stated that he liked cats and the other occupants also helped care for her cat. (g)The owner paid all utilities for the premises. (h)I find on the balance of probabilities that it is more likely than not that the relationship between the parties was not landlord/tenant but that of an owner and boarder relationship.
Are these premises a boarding house?
- A boarding house is defined in section 66B of the RTA as a residential tenancy containing 1 or more boarding rooms along with communal facilities and occupied or intended to be occupied by at least 6 tenants at any one time. A boarding house tenancy is a tenancy that is intended to, or does in fact, last for 28 days or more and the tenant is granted exclusive rights to occupy particular sleeping quarters in the boarding house, and is granted shared use of facilities of the boarding house.
- The premises were occupied by four people.
- The premises were not occupied by more than six people and there is no evidence of any intention of this.
- Therefore, I find that the premises are not a boarding house. Are these premises excluded by section 5(1)(n) RTA?
- Section 5 of the Act states that it does not apply in certain cases; one of these is 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. See section 5(1)(n) RTA.
- There is no dispute that these premises were the respondent’s home and principally his place of residence.
- The parties have not entered into a signed agreement and therefore have not contracted back in to the RTA.
- Therefore, I find that this is excluded by section 5(1)(n) RTA. There is no jurisdiction to hear this claim and the matter is dismissed. Suppression
- The applicant is seeking suppression of identifying details in any publication of this order. If a party has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. Section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The applicant has not been successful in these proceedings, therefore, the application for name suppression is declined.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s2025, s5, s5(1), s66B, s77(1), s95A
Key findings
- Dispute theme: boarding house
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5470269?
The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
How much money was awarded in case 5470269?
Verified claim lines are listed on this page.
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5470269?
The primary dispute was Boarding House.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5470269?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13443676-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.