What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5427688?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Susielle Parearau Elizabeth Blong at 38 Church Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5427688?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $9,867.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427688?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427688?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13031218-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5427688?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Susielle Parearau Elizabeth Blong at 38 Church Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5427688?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $9,867.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427688?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427688?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13031218-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

38 Church Street, Masterton, Masterton 5810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5427688 — Rent arrears

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5427688 — net $7,515.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$9,867.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,515.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,515.00

The tenancy of Susielle Parearau Elizabeth Blong at 38 Church Street, Masterton, Masterton 5810 is terminated, and possession is granted to Wellington Property Management Limited As Agent For Joshua Aldrich, at 11.59 am on Monday 2 February 2026.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 (3254125009) to Wellington Property Management Limited As Agent For Joshua Aldrich immediately.

Susielle Parearau Elizabeth Blong must pay Wellington Property Management Limited As Agent For Joshua Aldrich $7,515.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing.

The tenant did not attend the remote hearing. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given to the tenant.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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 will be $14,951.00.

Section 49 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 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.

This tenancy commenced in April 2023. The rent summary provided shows that the tenant has been in arrears of rent, sometimes substantially, for most of the period since August 2023. The arrears are now $14,951.00, the equivalent of nearly six months rent.

The landlord could have applied to the Tribunal to have the tenancy terminated over a significant period of time.

I do not consider that the landlord has taken appropriate steps to recover the amount owed. The landlord has communicated with the tenant who on numerous occasions has promised to catch up on the rent owed. On occasion the tenant would “top up” the rent reducing the amount owed and then would fall back into arrears again. This pattern occurred throughout the tenancy.

The landlord’s attempts to resolve the issue of rent arrears without resorting to eviction we're initially reasonable. It can only be said to be reasonable up to a point. In Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726 the District Court held “Where are a tenant repeatedly breaches promises to make up arrears and instead additional arrears are incurred, there comes a point when it is being naive or careless to your own interests to persist giving the tenant more time to pay”.

For those reasons, I do not consider that the full arrears can be claimed by the landlord. In other words, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was some failure by the landlord to mitigate loss. In all the circumstances, I have decided that it is appropriate to discount the amount owing by one-third for the landlord’s failure to mitigate the loss.

As Wellington Property Management Limited As Agent For Joshua Aldrich has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5427688 — net $7,515.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$9,867.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,515.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,515.00

Order

The tenancy of Susielle Parearau Elizabeth Blong at 38 Church Street, Masterton, Masterton 5810 is terminated, and possession is granted to Wellington Property Management Limited As Agent For Joshua Aldrich, at 11.59 am on Monday 2 February 2026.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 (3254125009) to Wellington Property Management Limited As Agent For Joshua Aldrich immediately.
Susielle Parearau Elizabeth Blong must pay Wellington Property Management Limited As Agent For Joshua Aldrich $7,515.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing.
The tenant did not attend the remote hearing. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given to the tenant.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
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 will be $14,951.00.
Section 49 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 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.
This tenancy commenced in April 2023. The rent summary provided shows that the tenant has been in arrears of rent, sometimes substantially, for most of the period since August 2023. The arrears are now $14,951.00, the equivalent of nearly six months rent.
The landlord could have applied to the Tribunal to have the tenancy terminated over a significant period of time.
I do not consider that the landlord has taken appropriate steps to recover the amount owed. The landlord has communicated with the tenant who on numerous occasions has promised to catch up on the rent owed. On occasion the tenant would “top up” the rent reducing the amount owed and then would fall back into arrears again. This pattern occurred throughout the tenancy.
The landlord’s attempts to resolve the issue of rent arrears without resorting to eviction we're initially reasonable. It can only be said to be reasonable up to a point. In Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726 the District Court held “Where are a tenant repeatedly breaches promises to make up arrears and instead additional arrears are incurred, there comes a point when it is being naive or careless to your own interests to persist giving the tenant more time to pay”.
For those reasons, I do not consider that the full arrears can be claimed by the landlord. In other words, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was some failure by the landlord to mitigate loss. In all the circumstances, I have decided that it is appropriate to discount the amount owing by one-third for the landlord’s failure to mitigate the loss.
As Wellington Property Management Limited As Agent For Joshua Aldrich has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427688 — Rent arrears at 38 Church Street, Masterton, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427688 — Rent arrears at 38 Church Street, Masterton, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions