What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5243252 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 5243252?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $9,160.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5243252?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5243252?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11974373-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5243252 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 5243252?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $9,160.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5243252?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5243252?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11974373-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

16C Godden Crescent, Orakei, Auckland 1071 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5243252 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5243252 — net $7,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 21 April 2025 (less failure to mitigate loss	$9,160.00	Rent arrears to 21 April 2025 (less failure to mitigate loss
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,027.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,027.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5243252 — net $7,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 21 April 2025 (less failure to mitigate loss	$9,160.00	Rent arrears to 21 April 2025 (less failure to mitigate loss
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,027.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,027.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Angel Perrott at 16C Godden Crescent, Orakei, Auckland 1071 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11:59pm, Friday 20 June 2025.
Angel Perrott must pay [The landlord/s] $7,027.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 12 June 2025.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

TERMINATION

Where rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application is filed, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy. 1
The application was filed on 23 April 2025. The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves rent arrears were $13,740.00 (168 days) on this date.
Rent was more than 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy will terminate at 11:59pm on Friday, 20 June 2025. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 55(1)(a).

RENT ARREARS

The landlord submitted a rent summary, which is complete up to 21 April 2025 and proves rent arrears are $13,740.00 up to this date. Thereafter, the landlord has added a manual entry of $3,990.00 for the period 21 April 2025 – 12 June 2025.
I decline to order rent arrears up to 12 June 2025, as the rent summary between 21 April 2025 – 12 June 2025 is not complete.
It remains open to the landlord to file a fresh application for rent arrears from 21 April 2025 up to the end of the tenancy on 20 June 2025. The law
Section 49 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides 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, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
In Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726, the District Court helpfully summarised the law regarding mitigation of loss in the context of rent arrears as follows: [8] If either the landlord or 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. ... [11] Of relevance is s 55(1)(a) of the Act, which contains the power for a landlord to end a tenancy where rent is more than 21 days in arrears. In Housing New Zealand v Witika the landlord, Housing New Zealand, had allowed five months of arrears of rent to accumulate before it took steps to terminate the tenancy. In the Tribunal the adjudicator applied a “standard practice” of limiting rent arrears to 6 – 8 weeks on the basis that allowing rent arrears to accrue significantly beyond 21 days was indicative of a failure to mitigate loss. He awarded Housing New Zealand only $1760 of the $2256.43 arrears of rent claimed. In the District Court Judge Kerr overturned that decision. On appeal it was held that Housing New Zealand had acted reasonably in relation to the tenant given its position as the provider of state housing. It should not be restricted in its ability to recover the full amount of rent arrears on the basis of a failure to mitigate loss. Judge Kerr concluded: The learned adjudicator, as a matter of practice, seems to have dealt with claims for arrears by fixing an allowance of up to six weeks or two months worth of arrears as being the maximum allowable in any claim. In my view, that artificially creates a ceiling, which in terms of the principles relating to mitigation should not be created. If mitigation of damages is to be based on all the circumstances of the case and on the factual situation pertaining, then each case must be treated on its own merits, and to adopt a practice which may have the effect of tying an adjudicator’s hands in my opinion is not appropriate. [11] The Court 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. [12] Judge Kerr avoided imposing an artificial ceiling on the amount of arrears a landlord can let build up but clearly indicated that there is a duty to mitigate when the rent goes into arrears. [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 all the circumstances of the case. Applying that approach to this case, I do not consider that a landlord who has made a considered and sympathetic decision to allow a tenant to have more time to pay arrears should be prejudiced if payment is not made.
The case of Huang v Ashworth involved a tenancy that began in 2019 and ended on 3 January 2023. Throughout a significant period of the tenancy, the tenant had not paid the full amount of rent. As of March 2022, the tenant was 13 weeks behind in rent. Arrears continued to accrue throughout 2022 until the tenancy ended on 3 January 2023. The landlord sought an order for $10,000.00 for rent arrears.
The landlord in Ashworth had engaged in ongoing discussion with the tenant about payment of the arrears. At different times, arrangements were put in place for the tenant to pay the arrears. The tenant made numerous promises to the landlord to pay the arrears and would sometimes “top up” their rental payment to reduce the arrears. Based on the tenant’s multiple promises, the landlord allowed the tenant more time to pay the arrears, rather than seeking eviction. The District Court found the landlord’s attempts to resolve the issue of rent arrears without resorting to eviction reasonable, but only up to a point. At paragraph [18], the District Court stated: [18]... Where a tenant repeatedly breaches promises to make up arrears and instead additional arrears are incurred there comes a point where it is being naïve 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 am satisfied on balance of probabilities that there was some failure to mitigate loss...”
The District Court considered a reduction of one third of the total rent arrears claimed to be a reasonable reflection of the landlord’s failure to mitigate their loss. Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord gave evidence that the tenancy began on 26 February 2018 and was a relatively lengthy tenancy, which had continued for approximately 7 years.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant began to fall into arrears in late 2024. In January 2025, the landlord spoke with the tenant about the increasing rent arrears. The landlord gave evidence that the tenant advised them that they had been paying their rent into the wrong bank account. The landlord took the tenant at their word however, in February 2025, the landlord approached the tenant again as the arrears continued to increase.
The landlord gave evidence that in February 2025, the tenant told them that they were experiencing difficulty and could not afford to pay the rent. The landlord gave evidence that they showed some leniency to the tenant, because of the high cost of living at the time.
Thereafter, the landlord claims the relationship with the tenant deteriorated and the tenant prohibited the landlord from contacting them or visiting the premises.
The landlord did not serve any 14-day notices on the tenant or file prior proceedings for rent arrears with the Tribunal.
The landlord has recently engaged the services of Premium Rental Property Management Limited to manage the tenancy. Analysis
By the time the landlord filed their application with the Tribunal, rent arrears were $13,740.00. This equates to almost 6 months in rent arrears, which is a substantial amount.
According to the rent summary provided by the landlord, the tenant has not paid any rent since 11 November 2024.
The landlord has not issued any 14-day notices to the tenant or filed any previous proceedings for rent arrears with the Tribunal. The landlord claims this is because the tenant prohibited any contact from the landlord and would not let the landlord conduct inspections. I do not accept this as a reasonable excuse for the failure of the landlord to take any formal action against the tenant. A tenant is required to pay rent. 2 The RTA empowers a landlord to issue a 14-day notice to remedy any breach or file proceedings with the Tribunal where rent is 21 days or more in arrears. 3 The fact that a tenant does not want to be contacted by their landlord does not prohibit a landlord from sending a 14-day notice or filing proceedings with the Tribunal.
Considering the length of this tenancy, I find the landlord’s attempt to try to resolve the issue of rent arrears with the tenant personally in the first instance was reasonable, but only up to a certain point. By 27 January 2025, the tenant owed $6,900.00 in rent arrears and had not paid rent since 11 November 2024 (11 weeks). By continuing to allow the tenant more time to pay, I find the landlord acted in a manner that was naïve and careless to their own interests. In other words, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord failed to mitigate their loss.
As in Huang v Ashworth, I consider a reduction of one third to the total amount rent arrears claimed to be a fair and reasonable reflection of the landlord’s failure to mitigate their loss. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(1)(a) & 40(2)(b). 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 55(1)(a) & 56(1)(b).
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for an adjusted amount of $9,160.00.

FILING FEE

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5243252 — Rent arrears at 16C Godden Crescent, Orakei, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5243252 — Rent arrears at 16C Godden Crescent, Orakei, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TERMINATION

RENT ARREARS

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TERMINATION

RENT ARREARS

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions