What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5203118 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5203118?

Rent Arrears: $41,580.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5203118?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5203118?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11735844-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5203118 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5203118?

Rent Arrears: $41,580.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5203118?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5203118?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11735844-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

15 Elizabeth Avenue, Rakaia, Rakaia 7710 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5203118 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5203118 — net $41,580.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 27.3.25	$41,580.00	The claim for rent arrears is proven. Duty to mitigate loss:
Net award	$41,580.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$41,580.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Francis Hunt and Heidi Muckle at 15 Elizabeth Avenue, Rakaia, Rakaia 7710 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 6pm Thursday 17 April 2025.
Francis Hunt and Heidi Muckle must pay [The landlord/s] $41,580.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord and the tenant Francis Hunt attended the hearing. The tenant Heidi Muckle did not attend.
The tenant says he only found out about this application 30 minutes prior to the hearing. He says that he had a spam blocker turned on his phone and only turned it off this morning. He stated that he was not prepared for this hearing. The tenant asked for extra time until Monday next week to prepare a response. I do not accept this statement from the tenant, and I am not prepared to delay the matter any further. This is not a basis to grant an adjournment and to do so would cause a serious injustice to the landlord.
Before I address the specific claims, I will summarise some general legal principles that apply.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and rent arrears.
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.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted the landlord’s rent ledger I am satisfied that the tenants are responsible for the significant rent debt as claimed by the landlord.
The tenant says that there were deals made in respect of this property. The tenant says he undertook some work on the deck as it was rotten. He cleaned up the yard. He says that they had a verbal agreement with the landlord involving getting the place up the standard. No evidence whatsoever was provided by the tenant in support of his allegations.
The landlord’s evidence is clear and convincing. The rent ledger confirms that the tenants have not paid rent since July 2024.
The claim for rent arrears is proven. Duty to mitigate loss:
The rent arrears in this case are staggering.
It is not unreasonable to argue that a reasonable landlord would not allow a tenant to accrue the level of rent arrears before pursing the matter in the Tribunal.
A prudent landlord would in the first instance work with the tenant to get the arrears addressed, but if that was unsuccessful, then the landlord would bring the matter before the Tribunal for formal orders to address the situation, to avoid the prospect of very high rent arrears arising, that the tenant may be unable to pay.
Furthermore, there is a legal obligation on a landlord to mitigate its loss, as required by section 49 of the RTA. That provision holds: 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.
If either the landlord or the tenant breaches the provisions of the tenancy agreement or the Act, the other party must take reasonable steps to minimise any loss arising from that breach. Accordingly, where the tenant fails to pay rent owing, there is an obligation on the landlord to mitigate the loss. This can be achieved by not allowing the arrears to continue to accrue, instead ending the tenancy and reletting the premises thereby preventing ongoing loss.
The Courts have held there is a duty to mitigate any loss by ensuring rent does not get too far in arrears. The test of what is required by the landlord to mitigate loss is a factual one that requires the Court to consider: a. whether the landlord took all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss; and b. more particularly, whether it acted reasonably having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
This factual matrix of this case is unfortunate. The landlord advises as follows.
The landlord is an elderly pensioner, and getting around is not always easy for him, particularly when it comes to managing and following up on matters like rent arrears. He does not use a cell phone or computer.
He does not use online banking and relies on physically going into the bank to check his account or calling them up directly which adds to the challenge. In addition, both the landlord and his partner have experienced significant health issues over the past couple of years, which have further impacted his ability to stay on top of things.
The landlord became unwell around the end of October 2022. He says the tenants were aware of this, and it was around that time that their regular payments stopped. Since early 2023, payments have been inconsistent and unreliable. Throughout that time, the landlord received multiple verbal assurances over the phone that payment would be made the following week, or that one of the tenants was starting a new job and the rent will be paid.
Unfortunately, none of these promises came to fruition.
The landlord was later informed that one of the tenants would be working away on boats for six weeks and that payment would be made upon his return. That also did not happen. The same occurred again when the landlord was informed by the tenants that they would be away for about three months, with promises to pay up once back on shore. No payment came through.
To complicate matters further, in January 2024, the landlord’s partner suffered a serious injury and was hospitalised. Her recovery was expected to take approximately 12 months, and the landlord has been heavily involved in supporting her through this period, including frequent travel to and from hospital and care facilities.
The landlord claims that between December 2023 and 9 April 2025 only $2,320 has been paid in rent. Attempts to reach the tenants by phone were often unsuccessful. When the landlord tried to visit the property, he was unable to access it safely due to the presence of their large and aggressive American Ridgeback dogs. As a result, direct communication was extremely limited, and the few conversations he did have were filled with further promises of payments that never eventuated.
Given all these circumstances, the landlord was trusting that the tenants were acting in good faith and that payments would eventually be made. That trust, coupled with the landlord’s health challenges and caregiving responsibilities, meant he did not issue formal 14-day notices as he otherwise might have.
The landlord served the tenants with a 90 day notice to terminate on 27 October 2024. The landlord advises that this was sent by registered courier. To date, the notice has not been complied with and the tenants remain at the property. They are squatters.
It is my view that each case must be treated on its own merits. Every case is unique.
In all the circumstances of this case, including the landlord’s age and health I hold the view that the steps taken by the landlord to address matters, although not ideal, were reasonable. I also find that the tenants must accept responsibility for the unpaid rent along with their conduct towards the landlord.
The tenants must make urgent arrangements to vacate the property immediately.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, 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.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5203118 — net $41,580.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 27.3.25	$41,580.00	The claim for rent arrears is proven. Duty to mitigate loss:
Net award	$41,580.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$41,580.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Francis Hunt and Heidi Muckle at 15 Elizabeth Avenue, Rakaia, Rakaia 7710 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 6pm Thursday 17 April 2025.
Francis Hunt and Heidi Muckle must pay [The landlord/s] $41,580.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord and the tenant Francis Hunt attended the hearing. The tenant Heidi Muckle did not attend.
The tenant says he only found out about this application 30 minutes prior to the hearing. He says that he had a spam blocker turned on his phone and only turned it off this morning. He stated that he was not prepared for this hearing. The tenant asked for extra time until Monday next week to prepare a response. I do not accept this statement from the tenant, and I am not prepared to delay the matter any further. This is not a basis to grant an adjournment and to do so would cause a serious injustice to the landlord.
Before I address the specific claims, I will summarise some general legal principles that apply.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and rent arrears.
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.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted the landlord’s rent ledger I am satisfied that the tenants are responsible for the significant rent debt as claimed by the landlord.
The tenant says that there were deals made in respect of this property. The tenant says he undertook some work on the deck as it was rotten. He cleaned up the yard. He says that they had a verbal agreement with the landlord involving getting the place up the standard. No evidence whatsoever was provided by the tenant in support of his allegations.
The landlord’s evidence is clear and convincing. The rent ledger confirms that the tenants have not paid rent since July 2024.
The claim for rent arrears is proven. Duty to mitigate loss:
The rent arrears in this case are staggering.
It is not unreasonable to argue that a reasonable landlord would not allow a tenant to accrue the level of rent arrears before pursing the matter in the Tribunal.
A prudent landlord would in the first instance work with the tenant to get the arrears addressed, but if that was unsuccessful, then the landlord would bring the matter before the Tribunal for formal orders to address the situation, to avoid the prospect of very high rent arrears arising, that the tenant may be unable to pay.
Furthermore, there is a legal obligation on a landlord to mitigate its loss, as required by section 49 of the RTA. That provision holds: 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.
If either the landlord or the tenant breaches the provisions of the tenancy agreement or the Act, the other party must take reasonable steps to minimise any loss arising from that breach. Accordingly, where the tenant fails to pay rent owing, there is an obligation on the landlord to mitigate the loss. This can be achieved by not allowing the arrears to continue to accrue, instead ending the tenancy and reletting the premises thereby preventing ongoing loss.
The Courts have held there is a duty to mitigate any loss by ensuring rent does not get too far in arrears. The test of what is required by the landlord to mitigate loss is a factual one that requires the Court to consider: a. whether the landlord took all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss; and b. more particularly, whether it acted reasonably having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
This factual matrix of this case is unfortunate. The landlord advises as follows.
The landlord is an elderly pensioner, and getting around is not always easy for him, particularly when it comes to managing and following up on matters like rent arrears. He does not use a cell phone or computer.
He does not use online banking and relies on physically going into the bank to check his account or calling them up directly which adds to the challenge. In addition, both the landlord and his partner have experienced significant health issues over the past couple of years, which have further impacted his ability to stay on top of things.
The landlord became unwell around the end of October 2022. He says the tenants were aware of this, and it was around that time that their regular payments stopped. Since early 2023, payments have been inconsistent and unreliable. Throughout that time, the landlord received multiple verbal assurances over the phone that payment would be made the following week, or that one of the tenants was starting a new job and the rent will be paid.
Unfortunately, none of these promises came to fruition.
The landlord was later informed that one of the tenants would be working away on boats for six weeks and that payment would be made upon his return. That also did not happen. The same occurred again when the landlord was informed by the tenants that they would be away for about three months, with promises to pay up once back on shore. No payment came through.
To complicate matters further, in January 2024, the landlord’s partner suffered a serious injury and was hospitalised. Her recovery was expected to take approximately 12 months, and the landlord has been heavily involved in supporting her through this period, including frequent travel to and from hospital and care facilities.
The landlord claims that between December 2023 and 9 April 2025 only $2,320 has been paid in rent. Attempts to reach the tenants by phone were often unsuccessful. When the landlord tried to visit the property, he was unable to access it safely due to the presence of their large and aggressive American Ridgeback dogs. As a result, direct communication was extremely limited, and the few conversations he did have were filled with further promises of payments that never eventuated.
Given all these circumstances, the landlord was trusting that the tenants were acting in good faith and that payments would eventually be made. That trust, coupled with the landlord’s health challenges and caregiving responsibilities, meant he did not issue formal 14-day notices as he otherwise might have.
The landlord served the tenants with a 90 day notice to terminate on 27 October 2024. The landlord advises that this was sent by registered courier. To date, the notice has not been complied with and the tenants remain at the property. They are squatters.
It is my view that each case must be treated on its own merits. Every case is unique.
In all the circumstances of this case, including the landlord’s age and health I hold the view that the steps taken by the landlord to address matters, although not ideal, were reasonable. I also find that the tenants must accept responsibility for the unpaid rent along with their conduct towards the landlord.
The tenants must make urgent arrangements to vacate the property immediately.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, 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.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5203118 — Rent arrears at 15 Elizabeth Avenue, Rakaia, Rakaia 7710

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5203118 — Rent arrears at 15 Elizabeth Avenue, Rakaia, Rakaia 7710

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