What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5440248?

The tribunal order states: Jonathan Samson must pay The Agency T/A Bronwyn Kay Agency Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5440248?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,228.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5440248?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5440248?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13754019-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5440248?

The tribunal order states: Jonathan Samson must pay The Agency T/A Bronwyn Kay Agency Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5440248?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,228.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5440248?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5440248?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13754019-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1373 Matawai Road, Ormond, RD 1, Gisborne 4071 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5440248 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5440248 — net $4,256.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 July 2024	$4,228.57	Rent arrears to 8 July 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,256.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,256.57

Order

Jonathan Samson must pay The Agency T/A Bronwyn Kay Agency Limited As Agents For Sue Renner $4,256.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 15 June 2026.
The tenancy ended on 8 July 2024. The landlord filed their application on 9 February 2026, almost two years later. The landlord seeks an order for rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee.
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.

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

The law

A tenant must pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 1
Where a tenant fails to pay rent, section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires a landlord to take all reasonable steps to limit the loss arising from the tenant’s breach.
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. ... 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(a). [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. Analysis
The tenant claims that rent arrears accrued because the amount of rent charged was too high. They also claim that the property was in a poor condition and that the property manager stole the tenant’s cat. Further, they claim that the landlord has falsified documents and evidence. No evidence to support any of these claims was submitted by the tenant. The tenant has not filed a cross- application. For these reasons, I cannot consider these claims raised by the tenant as offsetting the rent arrears.
I now turn to consider whether the landlord acted reasonably to mitigate their loss.
By the end of the tenancy on 8 July 2024, the tenant owed $8,742.86 (102 days) in rent arrears. The bond was refunded to the landlord on 15 July 2024, leaving a total of $6,342.86.
Since late 2023, the tenant was in and out of rent arrears. They had not paid rent since 22 March 2024. The tenancy ended on 8 July 2024 after the tenant gave notice. The tenant did not pay rent for 15 weeks before the tenancy ended.
The landlord tried to deal with the issue of rent arrears themselves and did not make any applications to the Tribunal.
The tenant had previously managed to clear rent arrears totalling $1,800.00 on 29 December 2023 and $3,600.00 on 22 March 2024. Therefore, I find it was reasonable for the landlord to try to deal with the issue of rent arrears themselves, but only up to a certain point. By 9 May 2024, rent arrears were $3,600.00 and the tenant had not paid any rent for 5 weeks. It should have been obvious to the landlord at this point that the tenant was very unlikely to pay the arrears or rent moving forward. An application should have been made to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy. Instead, the landlord allowed the tenancy to continue and rent arrears to accrue. The tenancy only ended when the tenant gave notice. By failing to take any action to end the tenancy, I find the landlord failed to act reasonably to mitigate their loss. There needs to be an adjustment to the total amount of rent arrears to reflect this.
I adopt the same approach taken by the District Court in Huang v Ashcroft and apply a reduction of one third to the total amount of rent arrears.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $4,228.57. Filing fee
Because Bronwyn Kay Agency Limited As Agent For Sue Renner has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5440248 — net $4,256.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 July 2024	$4,228.57	Rent arrears to 8 July 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,256.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,256.57

Order

Jonathan Samson must pay The Agency T/A Bronwyn Kay Agency Limited As Agents For Sue Renner $4,256.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 15 June 2026.
The tenancy ended on 8 July 2024. The landlord filed their application on 9 February 2026, almost two years later. The landlord seeks an order for rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee.
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.

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

The law

A tenant must pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 1
Where a tenant fails to pay rent, section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires a landlord to take all reasonable steps to limit the loss arising from the tenant’s breach.
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. ... 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(a). [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. Analysis
The tenant claims that rent arrears accrued because the amount of rent charged was too high. They also claim that the property was in a poor condition and that the property manager stole the tenant’s cat. Further, they claim that the landlord has falsified documents and evidence. No evidence to support any of these claims was submitted by the tenant. The tenant has not filed a cross- application. For these reasons, I cannot consider these claims raised by the tenant as offsetting the rent arrears.
I now turn to consider whether the landlord acted reasonably to mitigate their loss.
By the end of the tenancy on 8 July 2024, the tenant owed $8,742.86 (102 days) in rent arrears. The bond was refunded to the landlord on 15 July 2024, leaving a total of $6,342.86.
Since late 2023, the tenant was in and out of rent arrears. They had not paid rent since 22 March 2024. The tenancy ended on 8 July 2024 after the tenant gave notice. The tenant did not pay rent for 15 weeks before the tenancy ended.
The landlord tried to deal with the issue of rent arrears themselves and did not make any applications to the Tribunal.
The tenant had previously managed to clear rent arrears totalling $1,800.00 on 29 December 2023 and $3,600.00 on 22 March 2024. Therefore, I find it was reasonable for the landlord to try to deal with the issue of rent arrears themselves, but only up to a certain point. By 9 May 2024, rent arrears were $3,600.00 and the tenant had not paid any rent for 5 weeks. It should have been obvious to the landlord at this point that the tenant was very unlikely to pay the arrears or rent moving forward. An application should have been made to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy. Instead, the landlord allowed the tenancy to continue and rent arrears to accrue. The tenancy only ended when the tenant gave notice. By failing to take any action to end the tenancy, I find the landlord failed to act reasonably to mitigate their loss. There needs to be an adjustment to the total amount of rent arrears to reflect this.
I adopt the same approach taken by the District Court in Huang v Ashcroft and apply a reduction of one third to the total amount of rent arrears.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $4,228.57. Filing fee
Because Bronwyn Kay Agency Limited As Agent For Sue Renner has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5440248 — Rent arrears at 1373 Matawai Road, Ormond, RD 1, Gisborne 4071

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5440248 — Rent arrears at 1373 Matawai Road, Ormond, RD 1, Gisborne 4071

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions