What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5157393?

The tribunal order states: Martha Alan Jean Sinclair-Phillips must pay Eddie Wongeoon $3,575.00

How much money was awarded in case 5157393?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Internet Charges: $298.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5157393?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5157393?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12241423-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5157393?

The tribunal order states: Martha Alan Jean Sinclair-Phillips must pay Eddie Wongeoon $3,575.00

How much money was awarded in case 5157393?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Internet Charges: $298.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5157393?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5157393?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12241423-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 3, 1 Gilberts Road, Waikari, RD 1, Waikari 7385 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5157393 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5157393 — net $3,575.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,250.00	Rent arrears
Internet charges	$298.00	Internet charges
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,575.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,575.00

Order

Martha Alan Jean Sinclair-Phillips must pay Eddie Wongeoon $3,575.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The tenant did not attend and could not be contacted on the number given in the Notice of Hearing which was properly served. Background
The tenant rented the premises under an agreement starting on 2 November 2021. The agreement is described as a house sharing agreement.
The agreement provided for a weekly rent of $110.00. It states that electricity and internet bills are to be shared evenly by all tenants in the house on a per capita basis.
The landlord’s evidence is that the tenant moved out after he gave a notice increasing the rent to $140.00 per week from 7 November 2023.
At the end of January 2024 the tenant contacted the landlord about the possibility of moving back in. Those discussions ended with a txt from the tenant, “Hi Eddie I am planning to move in 10/02/24”. The landlord responded “Alright Martha. That’s confirmed. Did Ethan say the room is clean?”. The tenant confirmed, “Yep Ethan said its clean.”
On 25 August 2024, the tenant txt the landlord, “Hi Eddie I am planning to move out in about a months time.” The landlord confirmed, “Alright martha. Which is the last day for your tenancy?”. The tenant advised, “Can I let you know within the next 2 weeks? I am not entirely sure yet.”
On 3 September 2024 the landlord asked again, “Hi Martha, which day is the last day of your tenancy?”
On 9 December 2024 the tenant notified the landlord that she had moved out on 14 September 2024 and said that she had told the landlord that at the time.
The landlord denies receiving any such notification and claims that rent is payable to 8 December 2024.
In the period between 10 February 2024 and 8 December 2024, the tenant made 5 rent payments of $50.00 each, on 9.4.24, 23.4.24, 14.5.24, 9.7.24 and
7.24 meaning that the unpaid rent claimed for that period is $5,810.00. Issues
The Tribunal needs to answer the following questions: a. Was there a tenancy agreement in place between the landlord and the tenant; b. If so; i.when did it start; ii. when did it end; iii. what rent was payable; iv. what outgoings were payable; v. are any of the landlord’s claims unrecoverable because he failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate his losses?

Was there a tenancy agreement?

The evidence shows an offer by the tenant to take a tenancy and the landlord accepting that offer. A tenancy agreement was therefore created.

When did the tenancy start?

The tenant gave 10 February 2024 as the start date, which the landlord accepted. The landlord’s says he understands she moved in on that date. In the absence of contrary evidence from the tenant, I find that the start date was 10 February 2024.

When did the tenancy end?

The evidence shows that the tenant gave the landlord an indication that she would be moving out toward the end of September.
A notice to end a tenancy does not need to be in a particular form but the RTA does require that, “....the intention to terminate the tenancy on a particular date or on the expiry of a particular period is stated clearly in the notice....” (s.51(4)). The evidence does not show the tenant having given a termination notice meeting that requirement.
I find that the tenancy ended on 8 December 2025, the date claimed by the landlord, when he became aware that the tenant had vacated.

What rent was payable?

My finding is that the only reasonable interpretation of the parties’ intentions is that the tenant would be moving back to the premises on the same terms as applied when she left, a few months earlier. That followed her having been given the notice of rent increase, so I find that the rent payable under the agreement was $140.00 per week.
That being so, there is unpaid rent of $5,810.00 over the duration of the tenancy.

What outgoings were payable?

Under s.39 RTA, “The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities.” That includes electricity and internet charges.
Here, the landlord is unable to know what electricity charges are exclusively attributable to the tenant. Recovery of those consumption based charges on a pro-rata basis from the occupants, may or may not reflect their actual usage. As the landlord is unable to prove that the claimed electricity charges are attributable to the tenant, those charges cannot be recovered from her.
That does not apply to internet charges, which are not consumption based, so it is fair that all users of the internet facility pay equally for the provision of that facility.
The landlord’s calculation of the pro-rata contribution allows for periods during which the tenant was not occupying the premises. He is entitled to recover her share of the internet charges as claimed. The charges are proved by the Amuri.net invoices provided. Are any of the landlord’s claims unrecoverable because he failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate his losses?
Section 49 RTA requires that, “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...”
The landlord says that there had been no problems in Ms Sinclair-Phillips’ previous tenancy. He thought she was struggling a bit financially but would be able to sort out the rent.
There were some conversations about the rent arrears but no formal notices to remedy were given.
In Huang v Ashworth 1 the Tribunal determined that the landlord should not be entitled to recover more than 3 months’ rent arrears.
On appeal to the District Court 2 , the Court confirmed that a landlord has an obligation to mitigate rent arrears losses. In circumstances where the landlord had made several attempts to address the rent arears directly with the tenant, the Court said at paragraph [18], “I consider that [the landlord’s] attempts to resolve the issue of rent arrears without resorting to eviction were reasonable, especially for a tenancy that had lasted close to four years. But I qualify that: it is reasonable only up to a point. Where a tenant repeatedly breaches promises to make up arrears and instead additional arrears are incurred there comes a point when it is being naive or careless to your own interests to persist giving the tenant more time to pay. For that reason I do not consider that the full arrears can be claimed. In other words I'm satisfied of balance of probabilities that there was some 1 Huang v Ashworth [2023] NZTT 4470826, 4599009 2 Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726 failure to mitigate loss but less than that assessed by the Tribunal (3 months).”
The Tribunal must assess, in the circumstances of each case, whether the steps taken by a party to mitigate claimed losses, were reasonable.
Here, the landlord received no rent at all until $50.00 was paid, 2 months after the tenancy began, on 9 April 2024. By 26 April 2024 when another $50.00 was paid, the rent was 10 weeks in arrears.
Toward the end of the tenancy, even though the tenant had said she would be moving out around the end of September, rent was 28 weeks’ in arears and none was then being paid, and the tenant had not replied to the landlord’s txt asking again when her last day of the tenancy would be, the landlord still took no steps to bring the tenancy to an end.
This application was brought on 5 February 2025. The first allocated hearing was 17 weeks later on 3 June 2025. It is fair to assume that if the landlord had brought an application to end the tenancy earlier, it could have been heard within that time frame – very likely much earlier as an application to end a tenancy is generally scheduled with higher priority than an application about a vacated tenancy that has ended some months before.
The landlord was entitled to seek termination of the tenancy when the rent was 21 days in arears, on 2 March 2024. It is fair to assume that had he done so, the tenancy would have been ended, at the latest, by early July.
Accepting there should be allowance for the previous tenancy having been trouble free and for reasonable leniency on the landlord’s part, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to allow a little more time after he became entitled to do so, before seeking to end the tenancy.
Beyond that though, much of the loss suffered by the landlord is attributable to his having failed to take reasonable steps available to him, to avoid ongoing accumulation of the arrears he now claims.
I find that the landlord should not be able to recover rent beyond the amount owing at 2 August 2025 of $3,250.00 (23 weeks’).
The same reasoning applies to compensation for the internet charges which are limited to 6 months x $149.00 per month/ 3 occupants = $298.00.
As Eddie Wongeoon has succeeded with claims I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5157393 — net $3,575.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,250.00	Rent arrears
Internet charges	$298.00	Internet charges
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,575.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,575.00

Order

Martha Alan Jean Sinclair-Phillips must pay Eddie Wongeoon $3,575.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The tenant did not attend and could not be contacted on the number given in the Notice of Hearing which was properly served. Background
The tenant rented the premises under an agreement starting on 2 November 2021. The agreement is described as a house sharing agreement.
The agreement provided for a weekly rent of $110.00. It states that electricity and internet bills are to be shared evenly by all tenants in the house on a per capita basis.
The landlord’s evidence is that the tenant moved out after he gave a notice increasing the rent to $140.00 per week from 7 November 2023.
At the end of January 2024 the tenant contacted the landlord about the possibility of moving back in. Those discussions ended with a txt from the tenant, “Hi Eddie I am planning to move in 10/02/24”. The landlord responded “Alright Martha. That’s confirmed. Did Ethan say the room is clean?”. The tenant confirmed, “Yep Ethan said its clean.”
On 25 August 2024, the tenant txt the landlord, “Hi Eddie I am planning to move out in about a months time.” The landlord confirmed, “Alright martha. Which is the last day for your tenancy?”. The tenant advised, “Can I let you know within the next 2 weeks? I am not entirely sure yet.”
On 3 September 2024 the landlord asked again, “Hi Martha, which day is the last day of your tenancy?”
On 9 December 2024 the tenant notified the landlord that she had moved out on 14 September 2024 and said that she had told the landlord that at the time.
The landlord denies receiving any such notification and claims that rent is payable to 8 December 2024.
In the period between 10 February 2024 and 8 December 2024, the tenant made 5 rent payments of $50.00 each, on 9.4.24, 23.4.24, 14.5.24, 9.7.24 and
7.24 meaning that the unpaid rent claimed for that period is $5,810.00. Issues
The Tribunal needs to answer the following questions: a. Was there a tenancy agreement in place between the landlord and the tenant; b. If so; i.when did it start; ii. when did it end; iii. what rent was payable; iv. what outgoings were payable; v. are any of the landlord’s claims unrecoverable because he failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate his losses?

Was there a tenancy agreement?

The evidence shows an offer by the tenant to take a tenancy and the landlord accepting that offer. A tenancy agreement was therefore created.

When did the tenancy start?

The tenant gave 10 February 2024 as the start date, which the landlord accepted. The landlord’s says he understands she moved in on that date. In the absence of contrary evidence from the tenant, I find that the start date was 10 February 2024.

When did the tenancy end?

The evidence shows that the tenant gave the landlord an indication that she would be moving out toward the end of September.
A notice to end a tenancy does not need to be in a particular form but the RTA does require that, “....the intention to terminate the tenancy on a particular date or on the expiry of a particular period is stated clearly in the notice....” (s.51(4)). The evidence does not show the tenant having given a termination notice meeting that requirement.
I find that the tenancy ended on 8 December 2025, the date claimed by the landlord, when he became aware that the tenant had vacated.

What rent was payable?

My finding is that the only reasonable interpretation of the parties’ intentions is that the tenant would be moving back to the premises on the same terms as applied when she left, a few months earlier. That followed her having been given the notice of rent increase, so I find that the rent payable under the agreement was $140.00 per week.
That being so, there is unpaid rent of $5,810.00 over the duration of the tenancy.

What outgoings were payable?

Under s.39 RTA, “The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities.” That includes electricity and internet charges.
Here, the landlord is unable to know what electricity charges are exclusively attributable to the tenant. Recovery of those consumption based charges on a pro-rata basis from the occupants, may or may not reflect their actual usage. As the landlord is unable to prove that the claimed electricity charges are attributable to the tenant, those charges cannot be recovered from her.
That does not apply to internet charges, which are not consumption based, so it is fair that all users of the internet facility pay equally for the provision of that facility.
The landlord’s calculation of the pro-rata contribution allows for periods during which the tenant was not occupying the premises. He is entitled to recover her share of the internet charges as claimed. The charges are proved by the Amuri.net invoices provided. Are any of the landlord’s claims unrecoverable because he failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate his losses?
Section 49 RTA requires that, “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...”
The landlord says that there had been no problems in Ms Sinclair-Phillips’ previous tenancy. He thought she was struggling a bit financially but would be able to sort out the rent.
There were some conversations about the rent arrears but no formal notices to remedy were given.
In Huang v Ashworth 1 the Tribunal determined that the landlord should not be entitled to recover more than 3 months’ rent arrears.
On appeal to the District Court 2 , the Court confirmed that a landlord has an obligation to mitigate rent arrears losses. In circumstances where the landlord had made several attempts to address the rent arears directly with the tenant, the Court said at paragraph [18], “I consider that [the landlord’s] attempts to resolve the issue of rent arrears without resorting to eviction were reasonable, especially for a tenancy that had lasted close to four years. But I qualify that: it is reasonable only up to a point. Where a tenant repeatedly breaches promises to make up arrears and instead additional arrears are incurred there comes a point when it is being naive or careless to your own interests to persist giving the tenant more time to pay. For that reason I do not consider that the full arrears can be claimed. In other words I'm satisfied of balance of probabilities that there was some 1 Huang v Ashworth [2023] NZTT 4470826, 4599009 2 Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726 failure to mitigate loss but less than that assessed by the Tribunal (3 months).”
The Tribunal must assess, in the circumstances of each case, whether the steps taken by a party to mitigate claimed losses, were reasonable.
Here, the landlord received no rent at all until $50.00 was paid, 2 months after the tenancy began, on 9 April 2024. By 26 April 2024 when another $50.00 was paid, the rent was 10 weeks in arrears.
Toward the end of the tenancy, even though the tenant had said she would be moving out around the end of September, rent was 28 weeks’ in arears and none was then being paid, and the tenant had not replied to the landlord’s txt asking again when her last day of the tenancy would be, the landlord still took no steps to bring the tenancy to an end.
This application was brought on 5 February 2025. The first allocated hearing was 17 weeks later on 3 June 2025. It is fair to assume that if the landlord had brought an application to end the tenancy earlier, it could have been heard within that time frame – very likely much earlier as an application to end a tenancy is generally scheduled with higher priority than an application about a vacated tenancy that has ended some months before.
The landlord was entitled to seek termination of the tenancy when the rent was 21 days in arears, on 2 March 2024. It is fair to assume that had he done so, the tenancy would have been ended, at the latest, by early July.
Accepting there should be allowance for the previous tenancy having been trouble free and for reasonable leniency on the landlord’s part, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to allow a little more time after he became entitled to do so, before seeking to end the tenancy.
Beyond that though, much of the loss suffered by the landlord is attributable to his having failed to take reasonable steps available to him, to avoid ongoing accumulation of the arrears he now claims.
I find that the landlord should not be able to recover rent beyond the amount owing at 2 August 2025 of $3,250.00 (23 weeks’).
The same reasoning applies to compensation for the internet charges which are limited to 6 months x $149.00 per month/ 3 occupants = $298.00.
As Eddie Wongeoon has succeeded with claims I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5157393 — Rent arrears at Room 3, 1 Gilberts Road, Waikari, RD 1, Waikari 7385

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5157393 — Rent arrears at Room 3, 1 Gilberts Road, Waikari, RD 1, Waikari 7385

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a tenancy agreement?

When did the tenancy start?

When did the tenancy end?

What rent was payable?

What outgoings were payable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a tenancy agreement?

When did the tenancy start?

When did the tenancy end?

What rent was payable?

What outgoings were payable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions