What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5063933 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant] owes Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities $12,813.42 (“the debt”),

How much money was awarded in case 5063933?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5063933?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5063933?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11108896-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5063933 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant] owes Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities $12,813.42 (“the debt”),

How much money was awarded in case 5063933?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5063933?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5063933?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11108896-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5063933 — Rent arrears

Order

[The tenant] owes Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities $12,813.42 (“the debt”), for rent arrears and one week’s rent to 27 November 2024.
[The tenant] must pay rent and the debt as follows: a. By 366 weekly payments of the weekly rent payable and $35.00 for the debt. b. A final payment of weekly rent and $3.42 for the debt. c. Payments will be every Thursday, with the first payment on 28/11/2024 and continuing until 04/12/2031.
Payments will be allocated in the following order: rent, and then the debt.
If the tenant fails to pay rent and the debt within 2 working days of the due dates: a. The tenancy at [the tenancy address] will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises. b. The balance of the debt will be payable immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted on Microsoft Teams by telephone.
Karen Thompson-Wise attended for the landlord.
The tenant attended for herself.
The landlord has applied for conditional termination of the tenancy based on payment of rent arrears. The tenant wants to repay the debt to avoid immediate termination.

What amount of arrears should be ordered?

The arrears have built up over many years. The landlord did not apply to the Tribunal in respect to the arrears previously because of Government-directed policies. There is a new broom. The policies are now to pursue tenants like this tenant for arrears from an early stage.
The arrears now stand at $19,414.28. That is a daunting amount for the tenant. The rent is currently $317.00 per week, but that amount is liable to change depending on the tenant’s circumstances.
It appears the landlord did little to prevent the arrears accruing from March 2020 when the tenant first fell into arrears until taking action this year. Consequently, a question arises as to whether Kāinga Ora breached its duty to mitigate its loss imposed by s 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which provides: 49 Mitigation of damage or loss 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.
In the recent case Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726, the District Court confirmed there is a duty to mitigate for rent arrears. His Honour, Judge Sainsbury confirmed the question is one of fact as to what the landlord did to limit their loss in rent. It the landlord did not do enough, then mitigation required for rent arrears order. His Honour considered observed in respect to a decision of Kerr DCJ in which Kāinga Ora (known then as Housing New Zealand) was the landlord: [13] On one view Judge Kerr appears to be placing a gloss on the obligation to mitigate for an organisation such as Housing New Zealand. This is because under s 3B(a)(i) of the Housing Corporation Act 1974, one of the objectives of Housing New Zealand is to exhibit "a sense of social responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates". As the main provider of social housing in New Zealand at the time, it may be considered as contrary to Housing New Zealand's social obligation to promptly evict tenants who cannot pay their rent. My view is that this analysis by Judge Kerr is an excellent illustration of the need to assess reasonable steps with regard to the all the circumstances of the case.
Sainsbury DCJ recognises the fact Kāinga Ora has a statutory duty to consider the interests of the community as a factor that can be taken into account in assessing whether it is has taken “all reasonable steps” in all the circumstances of the case. That does not mean that the landlord did not have a duty to mitigate its losses, just that there is another factor to consider.
In this case, Kāinga Ora took a compassionate approach to the tenant arrears which was consistent with the interests of the community. However, that does not obviate the need for it to mitigate its loss. Indeed, failure to reasonably do would not be in the interests of the community because the community would potentially be unfairly funding Kāinga Ora tenants whom Kāinga Ora does not hold to account.
So, Kāinga Ora is to be given some latitude on account of its social responsibilities, but I find that it has failed to take all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss on the facts of this case even considering that.
Consequently, the arrears are reduced by one-third, which results in a figure in line with what the arrears might have been had Kāinga Ora taken all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss in the context of its role as the Government’s main social housing provider.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

The landlord seeks a conditional order. The Tribunal has the power to make such an order. It is plainly an appropriate order to make in the current circumstances. It compassionately allows the tenant the opportunity to remain in the premises but promotes the community’s interest in ensuring that the debt is repaid.
A conditional order is made.
The tenant says she can pay $35.00 per week.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order may be enforced for 90 days from the first breach pursuant to s 64(4)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Non-publication
Ms Thompson-Wise sought non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details because she has very serious health problems that could be worsened by the distress associated with publication.
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that the particulars of a party not be published.
It is appropriate to order non-publication. The arrears arose through no fault of the tenant and her precarious health situation justifies non-publication and accords with the public interest.

Order

[The tenant] owes Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities $12,813.42 (“the debt”), for rent arrears and one week’s rent to 27 November 2024.
[The tenant] must pay rent and the debt as follows: a. By 366 weekly payments of the weekly rent payable and $35.00 for the debt. b. A final payment of weekly rent and $3.42 for the debt. c. Payments will be every Thursday, with the first payment on 28/11/2024 and continuing until 04/12/2031.
Payments will be allocated in the following order: rent, and then the debt.
If the tenant fails to pay rent and the debt within 2 working days of the due dates: a. The tenancy at [the tenancy address] will terminate and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises. b. The balance of the debt will be payable immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted on Microsoft Teams by telephone.
Karen Thompson-Wise attended for the landlord.
The tenant attended for herself.
The landlord has applied for conditional termination of the tenancy based on payment of rent arrears. The tenant wants to repay the debt to avoid immediate termination.

What amount of arrears should be ordered?

The arrears have built up over many years. The landlord did not apply to the Tribunal in respect to the arrears previously because of Government-directed policies. There is a new broom. The policies are now to pursue tenants like this tenant for arrears from an early stage.
The arrears now stand at $19,414.28. That is a daunting amount for the tenant. The rent is currently $317.00 per week, but that amount is liable to change depending on the tenant’s circumstances.
It appears the landlord did little to prevent the arrears accruing from March 2020 when the tenant first fell into arrears until taking action this year. Consequently, a question arises as to whether Kāinga Ora breached its duty to mitigate its loss imposed by s 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which provides: 49 Mitigation of damage or loss 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.
In the recent case Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726, the District Court confirmed there is a duty to mitigate for rent arrears. His Honour, Judge Sainsbury confirmed the question is one of fact as to what the landlord did to limit their loss in rent. It the landlord did not do enough, then mitigation required for rent arrears order. His Honour considered observed in respect to a decision of Kerr DCJ in which Kāinga Ora (known then as Housing New Zealand) was the landlord: [13] On one view Judge Kerr appears to be placing a gloss on the obligation to mitigate for an organisation such as Housing New Zealand. This is because under s 3B(a)(i) of the Housing Corporation Act 1974, one of the objectives of Housing New Zealand is to exhibit "a sense of social responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates". As the main provider of social housing in New Zealand at the time, it may be considered as contrary to Housing New Zealand's social obligation to promptly evict tenants who cannot pay their rent. My view is that this analysis by Judge Kerr is an excellent illustration of the need to assess reasonable steps with regard to the all the circumstances of the case.
Sainsbury DCJ recognises the fact Kāinga Ora has a statutory duty to consider the interests of the community as a factor that can be taken into account in assessing whether it is has taken “all reasonable steps” in all the circumstances of the case. That does not mean that the landlord did not have a duty to mitigate its losses, just that there is another factor to consider.
In this case, Kāinga Ora took a compassionate approach to the tenant arrears which was consistent with the interests of the community. However, that does not obviate the need for it to mitigate its loss. Indeed, failure to reasonably do would not be in the interests of the community because the community would potentially be unfairly funding Kāinga Ora tenants whom Kāinga Ora does not hold to account.
So, Kāinga Ora is to be given some latitude on account of its social responsibilities, but I find that it has failed to take all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss on the facts of this case even considering that.
Consequently, the arrears are reduced by one-third, which results in a figure in line with what the arrears might have been had Kāinga Ora taken all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss in the context of its role as the Government’s main social housing provider.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

The landlord seeks a conditional order. The Tribunal has the power to make such an order. It is plainly an appropriate order to make in the current circumstances. It compassionately allows the tenant the opportunity to remain in the premises but promotes the community’s interest in ensuring that the debt is repaid.
A conditional order is made.
The tenant says she can pay $35.00 per week.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order may be enforced for 90 days from the first breach pursuant to s 64(4)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Non-publication
Ms Thompson-Wise sought non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details because she has very serious health problems that could be worsened by the distress associated with publication.
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that the particulars of a party not be published.
It is appropriate to order non-publication. The arrears arose through no fault of the tenant and her precarious health situation justifies non-publication and accords with the public interest.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5063933 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5063933 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What amount of arrears should be ordered?

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What amount of arrears should be ordered?

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions