What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5256881 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 5256881?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,033.34 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5256881?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5256881?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12098219-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5256881 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 5256881?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,033.34 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5256881?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5256881?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12098219-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 5, 335 Mount Eden Road, Mount Eden, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5256881 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5256881 — net $6,060.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 26 April 2025 (less failure to mitigate loss	$6,033.34	Rent arrears to 26 April 2025 (less failure to mitigate loss
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,060.34
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,060.34

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Michelle Brocas must pay [The landlord/s] $6,060.34 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 10 July 2025. The tenant did not.
This was the second hearing of the matter. The first hearing occurred on 20 May 2025. The tenant attended and requested an adjournment to file evidence proving they did not owe rent arrears. I granted the tenant’s request and directed them to file their evidence 7 days before the date of the next hearing. The tenant did not file any evidence and did not attend the second hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
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. RENT ARREARS & MITIGATION OF LOSS
The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves rent arrears are $10,400.00 up to 26 April 2025, which is the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has been refunded the bond of $1,350.00 and therefore, seeks an order for $9,050.00 in rent arrears. The law
Section 40(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) imposes an obligation on a tenant to pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement.
Where a tenant fails to pay rent as and when it is due, section 49 RTA requires a landlord to take all reasonable steps to limit the loss arising from the tenant’s 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 discussed a landlord’s duty to mitigate their loss in the context of rent arrears and held: [8] ...[W]here 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...
The District Court held that the test of what is required by a landlord to mitigate their loss is a factual one that requires the Court or Tribunal 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.
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 did not pay the full amount of rent and was in arrears. As of March 2022, the tenant was 13 weeks in arrears. Rent arrears continued to increase until the tenancy ended on 3 January 2023. The landlord sought an order for $10,000.00 in rent arrears.
The landlord in Huang v 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, but the tenant did not adhere for any significant period of time. The tenant made numerous promises to the landlord to pay the arrears and would sometimes “top up” their rental payment to reduce the arrears, but never for a sustained period of time. The landlord continued to allow 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 were reasonable, but only up to a point. At paragraph [18], the District Court held: [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 they sent the tenant two formal letters for rent arrears on 24 January 2023 and 25 February 2023.
The landlord did not file any application for rent arrears with the Tribunal and instead tried to manage the issue themselves. The landlord gave evidence that the tenant was starting their own business and experiencing some difficulties. Therefore, the landlord gave them some leeway in terms of the rent arrears.
The landlord gave evidence that they had multiple telephone and in- person discussions with the tenant about the rent arrears. The tenant gave the landlord multiple assurances to repay the arrears, but never did.
The tenant made some payments to the landlord however, these were erratic and not sufficient to cover the full amount of rent.
The landlord claims they had sympathy for the tenant and only wanted to resort to eviction as a last resort. Analysis
The landlord seeks an order for $9,050.00 in rent arrears. This equates to approximately 161 days or 23 weeks.
The tenancy began on 4 October 2022 and the tenant first fell into arrears of $250.00 on 10 January 2023. Between 27 June 2023 and 26 September 2023, rent arrears remained at $1,900.00. From 14 November 2023, rent arrears steadily increased until the end of the tenancy on 26 April 2025 when they reached $10,400.00.
The rent summary shows that from 14 November 2023 – 26 April 2025, the tenant made payments of rent, but missed others. No additional payment towards the arrears were made during this time and the level of arrears only ever increased.
I consider the circumstances of this case to be similar to Huang v Ashcroft. In both cases, the landlord has attempted to resolve the issue of rent arrears without resorting to eviction. They have relied on multiple broken promises by the tenant to pay their rent and arrears over a relatively long period of time.
I find it was reasonable for the landlord to initially try to resolve the issue of increasing rent arrears without resorting to eviction, but only up to a certain point. By 6 February 2024, rent arrears were $3,650.00 (56 days). It should have been clear to the landlord at this point that the tenant was very unlikely to pay their rent and arrears as promised. By continuing to rely on promises made by the tenant after 6 February 2024, I find the landlord acted in a way that was naïve or careless to their own interests. In other words, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was some failure by the landlord to mitigate their loss.
Adopting the approach taken by the District Court in Huang v Ashcroft, I consider a reduction of one third reasonably reflects the landlord’s failure to mitigate their loss.
One third of $9,050.00 is $3,016.66.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $6,033.34.

FILING FEE

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5256881 — net $6,060.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 26 April 2025 (less failure to mitigate loss	$6,033.34	Rent arrears to 26 April 2025 (less failure to mitigate loss
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,060.34
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,060.34

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Michelle Brocas must pay [The landlord/s] $6,060.34 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 10 July 2025. The tenant did not.
This was the second hearing of the matter. The first hearing occurred on 20 May 2025. The tenant attended and requested an adjournment to file evidence proving they did not owe rent arrears. I granted the tenant’s request and directed them to file their evidence 7 days before the date of the next hearing. The tenant did not file any evidence and did not attend the second hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
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. RENT ARREARS & MITIGATION OF LOSS
The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves rent arrears are $10,400.00 up to 26 April 2025, which is the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has been refunded the bond of $1,350.00 and therefore, seeks an order for $9,050.00 in rent arrears. The law
Section 40(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) imposes an obligation on a tenant to pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement.
Where a tenant fails to pay rent as and when it is due, section 49 RTA requires a landlord to take all reasonable steps to limit the loss arising from the tenant’s 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 discussed a landlord’s duty to mitigate their loss in the context of rent arrears and held: [8] ...[W]here 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...
The District Court held that the test of what is required by a landlord to mitigate their loss is a factual one that requires the Court or Tribunal 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.
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 did not pay the full amount of rent and was in arrears. As of March 2022, the tenant was 13 weeks in arrears. Rent arrears continued to increase until the tenancy ended on 3 January 2023. The landlord sought an order for $10,000.00 in rent arrears.
The landlord in Huang v 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, but the tenant did not adhere for any significant period of time. The tenant made numerous promises to the landlord to pay the arrears and would sometimes “top up” their rental payment to reduce the arrears, but never for a sustained period of time. The landlord continued to allow 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 were reasonable, but only up to a point. At paragraph [18], the District Court held: [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 they sent the tenant two formal letters for rent arrears on 24 January 2023 and 25 February 2023.
The landlord did not file any application for rent arrears with the Tribunal and instead tried to manage the issue themselves. The landlord gave evidence that the tenant was starting their own business and experiencing some difficulties. Therefore, the landlord gave them some leeway in terms of the rent arrears.
The landlord gave evidence that they had multiple telephone and in- person discussions with the tenant about the rent arrears. The tenant gave the landlord multiple assurances to repay the arrears, but never did.
The tenant made some payments to the landlord however, these were erratic and not sufficient to cover the full amount of rent.
The landlord claims they had sympathy for the tenant and only wanted to resort to eviction as a last resort. Analysis
The landlord seeks an order for $9,050.00 in rent arrears. This equates to approximately 161 days or 23 weeks.
The tenancy began on 4 October 2022 and the tenant first fell into arrears of $250.00 on 10 January 2023. Between 27 June 2023 and 26 September 2023, rent arrears remained at $1,900.00. From 14 November 2023, rent arrears steadily increased until the end of the tenancy on 26 April 2025 when they reached $10,400.00.
The rent summary shows that from 14 November 2023 – 26 April 2025, the tenant made payments of rent, but missed others. No additional payment towards the arrears were made during this time and the level of arrears only ever increased.
I consider the circumstances of this case to be similar to Huang v Ashcroft. In both cases, the landlord has attempted to resolve the issue of rent arrears without resorting to eviction. They have relied on multiple broken promises by the tenant to pay their rent and arrears over a relatively long period of time.
I find it was reasonable for the landlord to initially try to resolve the issue of increasing rent arrears without resorting to eviction, but only up to a certain point. By 6 February 2024, rent arrears were $3,650.00 (56 days). It should have been clear to the landlord at this point that the tenant was very unlikely to pay their rent and arrears as promised. By continuing to rely on promises made by the tenant after 6 February 2024, I find the landlord acted in a way that was naïve or careless to their own interests. In other words, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was some failure by the landlord to mitigate their loss.
Adopting the approach taken by the District Court in Huang v Ashcroft, I consider a reduction of one third reasonably reflects the landlord’s failure to mitigate their loss.
One third of $9,050.00 is $3,016.66.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $6,033.34.

FILING FEE

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5256881 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 5, 335 Mount Eden Road, Mount Eden,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5256881 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 5, 335 Mount Eden Road, Mount Eden,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions