What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4838262 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Joseph Robert Waititi at [Tenancy address suppressed] is

How much money was awarded in case 4838262?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $14,098.23 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4838262?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4838262?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10136147-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4838262 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Joseph Robert Waititi at [Tenancy address suppressed] is

How much money was awarded in case 4838262?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $14,098.23 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4838262?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4838262?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10136147-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4838262 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4838262 — net $12,468.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 26.3.2024	$14,098.23	Rent arrears to 26.3.2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$12,468.67
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$12,468.67

Order

The tenancy of Joseph Robert Waititi at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,650.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Joseph Robert Waititi must pay [The landlord/s] $12,468.67 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

[The landlord/s] attended the hearing by teleconference on behalf of the landlord. The phone number for the tenant, the last three digits being 765, was called twice, without any response. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
[The landlord/s] said they have been unable to reach the tenant for at least 5 months and the tenant had not paid rent for a long time. I note from the rent summary provided that rent arrears began around 5 April 2023 and the tenant’s last rent payment was on 16 October 2023. The landlord did not file this application until 16 March 2024, almost one year after rent arrears began. [The landlord/s] said this was because the tenant was known to the owner and the owner had instructed them not to file an application until then. As a result, rent arrears are now significant.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 26 March 2023, the date of hearing, which is $15,664.69. Mitigation of loss
There is an obligation under the RTA that landlords mitigate their loss. That requirement is found in section 49 RTA, which provides: Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
The rules of law are summarised in Halsbury’s Laws of England (4 th ed, 1975) vol 12 at [1193]-[1194]: The plaintiff must take all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss which he has sustained consequent upon the defendant’s wrong, and if he fails to do so, he cannot claim damages for any such loss which he ought reasonably to have avoided. The plaintiff is only required to act reasonably, and whether he has done so is a question of fact in the circumstances of each particular case, and not a question of law.
It is open to the Tribunal to reduce the level of rent ordered to be paid, following a finding that the landlord failed to mitigate their loss. I note for example the District Court decision of Dunn and Dunn v Beedie and Beedie CIV-2014-088- 000349. In that case, the Tribunal determined that: In this instance, the Beedies breached the agreement by falling into rent arrears. Mr & Mrs Dunn took some steps but failed to take the ultimate step, which was to terminate the tenancy. In recognition of this failure to properly mitigate the loss I have reduced the amount of rent arrears owed by 10%.
The Dunns’ appealed the Tribunal’s decision to the District Court. What happened then was somewhat unusual because the Beedies requested that the appeal be found in the landlord’s favour thereby requiring that they pay the full arrears to the landlord, but the Court commented that: I note in passing that the adjudicator could not be faulted for rightly pointing to s 49 of the Act and there have been cases where that clause has worked to reduce rent arrears where failure to mitigate exists.
In this case, rent fell into arrears from around 5 April 2023 and has not returned to a zero balance since then. Even allowing for the landlord not taking action sooner given the relationship between the owner and the tenant, the last rent payment was on 16 October 2023 and the rent arrears have been allowed to grow significantly over the period of the tenancy, without the landlord mitigating the situation by seeking to terminate the tenancy earlier.
In the circumstances and from the evidence, I find that the landlord has failed to properly mitigate their loss regarding rent arrears. As such, I reduce the rent arrears owing by the tenant in the amount of $15,664.69 by 10% to $14,098.23.
Therefore, the tenant is to pay the landlord a total of $14,098.23 in rent to 26 March 2023.
Because [The landlord/s] has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord requested name suppression. As they have been successful with the claim, the landlord is granted suppression. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details, and the tenancy address, are not to be published.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4838262 — net $12,468.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 26.3.2024	$14,098.23	Rent arrears to 26.3.2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$12,468.67
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$12,468.67

Order

The tenancy of Joseph Robert Waititi at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,650.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Joseph Robert Waititi must pay [The landlord/s] $12,468.67 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

[The landlord/s] attended the hearing by teleconference on behalf of the landlord. The phone number for the tenant, the last three digits being 765, was called twice, without any response. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
[The landlord/s] said they have been unable to reach the tenant for at least 5 months and the tenant had not paid rent for a long time. I note from the rent summary provided that rent arrears began around 5 April 2023 and the tenant’s last rent payment was on 16 October 2023. The landlord did not file this application until 16 March 2024, almost one year after rent arrears began. [The landlord/s] said this was because the tenant was known to the owner and the owner had instructed them not to file an application until then. As a result, rent arrears are now significant.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 26 March 2023, the date of hearing, which is $15,664.69. Mitigation of loss
There is an obligation under the RTA that landlords mitigate their loss. That requirement is found in section 49 RTA, which provides: Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
The rules of law are summarised in Halsbury’s Laws of England (4 th ed, 1975) vol 12 at [1193]-[1194]: The plaintiff must take all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss which he has sustained consequent upon the defendant’s wrong, and if he fails to do so, he cannot claim damages for any such loss which he ought reasonably to have avoided. The plaintiff is only required to act reasonably, and whether he has done so is a question of fact in the circumstances of each particular case, and not a question of law.
It is open to the Tribunal to reduce the level of rent ordered to be paid, following a finding that the landlord failed to mitigate their loss. I note for example the District Court decision of Dunn and Dunn v Beedie and Beedie CIV-2014-088- 000349. In that case, the Tribunal determined that: In this instance, the Beedies breached the agreement by falling into rent arrears. Mr & Mrs Dunn took some steps but failed to take the ultimate step, which was to terminate the tenancy. In recognition of this failure to properly mitigate the loss I have reduced the amount of rent arrears owed by 10%.
The Dunns’ appealed the Tribunal’s decision to the District Court. What happened then was somewhat unusual because the Beedies requested that the appeal be found in the landlord’s favour thereby requiring that they pay the full arrears to the landlord, but the Court commented that: I note in passing that the adjudicator could not be faulted for rightly pointing to s 49 of the Act and there have been cases where that clause has worked to reduce rent arrears where failure to mitigate exists.
In this case, rent fell into arrears from around 5 April 2023 and has not returned to a zero balance since then. Even allowing for the landlord not taking action sooner given the relationship between the owner and the tenant, the last rent payment was on 16 October 2023 and the rent arrears have been allowed to grow significantly over the period of the tenancy, without the landlord mitigating the situation by seeking to terminate the tenancy earlier.
In the circumstances and from the evidence, I find that the landlord has failed to properly mitigate their loss regarding rent arrears. As such, I reduce the rent arrears owing by the tenant in the amount of $15,664.69 by 10% to $14,098.23.
Therefore, the tenant is to pay the landlord a total of $14,098.23 in rent to 26 March 2023.
Because [The landlord/s] has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord requested name suppression. As they have been successful with the claim, the landlord is granted suppression. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details, and the tenancy address, are not to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4838262 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4838262 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions