Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5422195 — Rent arrears at 157A Don Buck Road, Massey, Auckland 0614
Decided 22 April 2026 · Published 22 April 2026 · Application 5422195
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
L Ryken
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $3,312.62
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $3,312.62
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears to 4 December 2025 (less failure to mitigate loss | $692.00 | Rent arrears to 4 December 2025 (less failure to mitigate loss | |
| Water rates (18/10/2024 – 19/22/2025 | $482.37 | Water rates (18/10/2024 – 19/22/2025 | |
| Lock/key replacement | $299.00 | Lock/key replacement | |
| Rubbish removal, lawns and garden | $1,811.25 | Rubbish removal, lawns and garden | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $3,312.62 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $3,312.62 |
Claims and awards for application 5422195 — net $3,312.62 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears to 4 December 2025 (less failure to mitigate loss
- Amount
- $692.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears to 4 December 2025 (less failure to mitigate loss
Water rates (18/10/2024 – 19/22/2025
- Amount
- $482.37
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Water rates (18/10/2024 – 19/22/2025
Lock/key replacement
- Amount
- $299.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal, lawns and garden
- Amount
- $1,811.25
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rubbish removal, lawns and garden
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $3,312.62
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $3,312.62
Dismissed claims
- Property Damage — Filing fee
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Jolene Eyvette Mansell, Hayden Lee Deacon and Lavenda Paige Stone must pay Landed Property Management Limited As Agent For William Maurice $3,312.62 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing on 21 April 2026. The tenant did not.
- The tenant contacted the Tribunal in the evening on 20 April 2026 requesting an adjournment. The request was not granted, and the hearing proceeded on 21 April 2026 in the tenant’s absence.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, 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.
How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?
The law
- Section 40(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires a tenant to pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement.
- Where a tenant fails to pay rent, section 49 RTA requires a landlord to take all reasonable steps to mitigate their loss.
- 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. It held that: [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. 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. Analysis
- The tenancy ended on 4 December 2025. The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves rent arrears are $10,944.00 (156 days) up to this date.
- The tenant has not paid rent since 31 July 2025.
- On 21 July 2025, the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal for rent arrears only. Rent arrears were $2,194.00 (31 days) at this time. They increased to $6,604.00 by the date of the hearing on 29 September 2025. Despite this, the landlord did not file a new application for termination of the tenancy. Even after the hearing on 29 September 2025, the landlord did not file an application for termination. Instead, they sent the tenant a 90-day termination notice on 13 November 2025, when rent arrears were $9,474.00 (135 days). The tenancy ended on 4 December 2025 following the tenant’s counter notice of 21 days’.
- By 29 August 2025, rent arrears were $4,154.00 (59 days). The tenant had not paid rent for four consecutive weeks. It should have been obvious to the landlord at this stage that the tenant was very unlikely to pay their rent or arrears moving forward and an application for termination should have been filed with the Tribunal. By failing to do this, I find the landlord did not act reasonably to mitigate their loss and there needs to be an adjustment to the total level of rent arrears to reflect this. As in Ashcroft, I find a reduction of one third to be appropriate.
- Rent arrears up to 4 December 2025 are $10,944.00. One third of this is $3,648.00. This leaves a balance of $7,296.00. The landlord has already secured an order for $6,604.00 in rent arrears up to 3 October 2025. This needs to be deducted from the total amount of $7,296.00, which leaves a balance of $692.00.
- The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $692.00.
How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates invoices?
- The landlord submitted copies of original invoices from Watercare, which prove the tenant owes $482.37 in outstanding water rates for the period 18 October 2024 – 19 November 2025.
- The landlord’s claim for outstanding water rates invoices is granted for $482.37.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 1 Locks/keys
- The landlord gave evidence the tenant did not return the keys and one of the doors was left wide open at the end of the tenancy. I accept the landlord’s evidence. The landlord’s claim for compensation of $299.00 to replace the locks and keys is granted in full. The landlord submitted an invoice for this amount. Rubbish removal and lawns
- The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. The lawns have not been mowed and the garden is severely overgrown. Rubbish has also been left behind such as, miscellaneous household items in the pantry, an umbrella, whiteware, a mattress, a barbecue, temporary fencing and what appears to be a dog crate. On the basis of these photographs, I find the tenant 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). did not leave the lawns and gardens reasonably clean and tidy. I also find that they did not remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord submitted an invoice for $3,254.50 for lawns and garden work, rubbish removal and the fixing of the fence. For reasons discussed below, the landlord’s claim to repair the fence is not granted, which means there needs to be an adjustment to the invoice.
- The invoice records the cost to fix the fence as being $1,127.00 (including GST). It also records $632.50 (including GST) for removing rubbish and the broken fence.
- The landlord’s claim for compensation in relation to the lawns, garden and rubbish removal is granted for $1,811.25. This has been calculated be subtracting $1,127.00 and $316.25 from the total invoice amount of $3,254.50. I find $1,811.25 fairly and accurately reflects that portion of the invoice relating to lawns, garden and rubbish removal. Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred to the fence during the tenancy? The law
- A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 2
- Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 3 Analysis
- The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show part of the fence has fallen over. The landlord gave evidence the fence was not in this condition at beginning of the tenancy, which I accept. Notwithstanding that I am convinced the fence fell over during the tenancy, the landlord has not convinced me on the balance of probabilities that the damage exceeds fair wear and tear. The fence is a small, wooden picket fence, which appears relatively old in the photographs 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 3 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. taken at the end of the tenancy. The wood is quite discoloured, and the fence does not appear to be new. The landlord does not know how old the fence was.
- An outdoor fence is constantly exposed to the elements. It is reasonably foreseeable that it might deteriorate overtime and fall down. No evidence of unreasonable use of the fence by the tenant was submitted by the landlord. In these circumstances, I am not convinced that the damage to the fence exceeds fair wear and tear.
- For this reason, the landlord’s claim for compensation to repair the fence is dismissed. Filing fee
- Because Landed Property Management Limited As Agent For William Maurice has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s12, s13, s2, s21, s22, s28, s40(1), s40(2), s49, s55(1)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5422195?
The tribunal order states: Jolene Eyvette Mansell, Hayden Lee Deacon and Lavenda Paige Stone must
How much money was awarded in case 5422195?
Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,811.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $692.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $482.37 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5422195?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5422195?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13480062-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.