What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5299602 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 5299602?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $13,218.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5299602?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5299602?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12443053-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5299602 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 5299602?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $13,218.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5299602?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5299602?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12443053-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

20 Neri Crescent, Pomare, Rotorua 3015 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5299602 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5299602 — net $13,246.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears of reduced by 30	$13,218.00	Rent arrears of reduced by 30
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$13,246.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$13,246.80

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name.
Chris Wright must pay [The landlord/s] $13,246.80 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video conference.
The tenant did not join the video link for the hearing. The Tribunal also called the tenant for the hearing on the cell phone number provided in the application but the call was answered by another person who advised she has recently received that number for her work phone. I was satisfied that service had completed and proceeded with the hearing.
The landlord had applied for termination of the tenancy and rent arrears. By the date of this hearing the tenant had already left and the landlord now has possession. The exact date is uncertain given the tenant left without notice. After hearing from the landlord, I have adopted 23 July 2025 as the end date. The remaining claim for determination therefore is rent arrears.
The rent summary established rent arrears of $18,884.00 up to 23 July 2025.
The landlord had not taken any steps to apply for termination of the tenancy until this application was filed on 3 July 2025. When asked why he did not act sooner, the landlord explained the tenancy formed on the back of a friendship with the tenant’s father. They were also sympathetic to the tenant’s personal circumstances and his “lumpy” income as a contractor.
The rent summary and history of payment was reviewed with the landlord.
A bond was required and promised but no tenant payment of the $1000.00 bond was made.

How much should be awarded for rent arrears?

Section 49 RTA provides: “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 1 the District Court considered on appeal the Tribunal’s decision to allow the landlord to claim three months’ rent arrears only with the landlord arguing he should be awarded the full arrears that accrued over 28 weeks. Judge Sainsbury noted that he did not consider that a landlord who has made a considered and sympathetic decision to allow a tenant to have more time to pay should be prejudiced if payment is not made. He held that the landlord’s attempts to resolve and allow time for payment without resorting to eviction were reasonable especially for a 4-year tenancy in that case. He qualified this by saying it was reasonable only up to a point stating at paragraph [18]: “Where a tenant repeatedly breaches promises to make up arrears and instead additional arrears are incurred there comes a point when 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 here was some failure to mitigate loss but less than that assessed by the Tribunal.”
In that decision the judge discounted the arrears, which amounted to almost 28 weeks, by one third for failure to mitigate loss.
The duty to mitigate was explained to the landlord. 1 Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726
Adopting the same principles here, I consider the landlord has been sympathetic to the tenant’s circumstances, accepted promises as made, and allowed significant leniency. That approach was reasonable to a point. The arrears continued to accrue from September 2024 (after a lump sum payment by the tenant in May 2024, was followed by rent paid as due to mid-September). After this date the arrears increased by approximately 50% due to repeated nonpayment of rent. It was not until May 2025 that a formal notice to remedy the rent arrears was served by the landlord. This application was submitted on 3 July 2025. This was a failure to mitigate.
I consider in this instance that a 30% reduction in rent arrears is appropriate and in line with Huang. This reduced total of arrears aligns with what the approximate total would have been if a timelier application was lodged following the extended failure of the tenant to pay rent from mid-September 2024.
The final rent arrears ordered is reduced to $13,218.00 due to the failure to mitigate. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.
The landlord requested name suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, landlord name suppression is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5299602 — net $13,246.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears of reduced by 30	$13,218.00	Rent arrears of reduced by 30
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$13,246.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$13,246.80

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name.
Chris Wright must pay [The landlord/s] $13,246.80 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video conference.
The tenant did not join the video link for the hearing. The Tribunal also called the tenant for the hearing on the cell phone number provided in the application but the call was answered by another person who advised she has recently received that number for her work phone. I was satisfied that service had completed and proceeded with the hearing.
The landlord had applied for termination of the tenancy and rent arrears. By the date of this hearing the tenant had already left and the landlord now has possession. The exact date is uncertain given the tenant left without notice. After hearing from the landlord, I have adopted 23 July 2025 as the end date. The remaining claim for determination therefore is rent arrears.
The rent summary established rent arrears of $18,884.00 up to 23 July 2025.
The landlord had not taken any steps to apply for termination of the tenancy until this application was filed on 3 July 2025. When asked why he did not act sooner, the landlord explained the tenancy formed on the back of a friendship with the tenant’s father. They were also sympathetic to the tenant’s personal circumstances and his “lumpy” income as a contractor.
The rent summary and history of payment was reviewed with the landlord.
A bond was required and promised but no tenant payment of the $1000.00 bond was made.

How much should be awarded for rent arrears?

Section 49 RTA provides: “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 1 the District Court considered on appeal the Tribunal’s decision to allow the landlord to claim three months’ rent arrears only with the landlord arguing he should be awarded the full arrears that accrued over 28 weeks. Judge Sainsbury noted that he did not consider that a landlord who has made a considered and sympathetic decision to allow a tenant to have more time to pay should be prejudiced if payment is not made. He held that the landlord’s attempts to resolve and allow time for payment without resorting to eviction were reasonable especially for a 4-year tenancy in that case. He qualified this by saying it was reasonable only up to a point stating at paragraph [18]: “Where a tenant repeatedly breaches promises to make up arrears and instead additional arrears are incurred there comes a point when 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 here was some failure to mitigate loss but less than that assessed by the Tribunal.”
In that decision the judge discounted the arrears, which amounted to almost 28 weeks, by one third for failure to mitigate loss.
The duty to mitigate was explained to the landlord. 1 Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726
Adopting the same principles here, I consider the landlord has been sympathetic to the tenant’s circumstances, accepted promises as made, and allowed significant leniency. That approach was reasonable to a point. The arrears continued to accrue from September 2024 (after a lump sum payment by the tenant in May 2024, was followed by rent paid as due to mid-September). After this date the arrears increased by approximately 50% due to repeated nonpayment of rent. It was not until May 2025 that a formal notice to remedy the rent arrears was served by the landlord. This application was submitted on 3 July 2025. This was a failure to mitigate.
I consider in this instance that a 30% reduction in rent arrears is appropriate and in line with Huang. This reduced total of arrears aligns with what the approximate total would have been if a timelier application was lodged following the extended failure of the tenant to pay rent from mid-September 2024.
The final rent arrears ordered is reduced to $13,218.00 due to the failure to mitigate. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.
The landlord requested name suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, landlord name suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5299602 — Rent arrears at 20 Neri Crescent, Pomare, Rotorua 3015

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5299602 — Rent arrears at 20 Neri Crescent, Pomare, Rotorua 3015

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much should be awarded for rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much should be awarded for rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions