What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5445428?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Kirti Karishma Diran at 34A Landon Avenue, Mangere East,

How much money was awarded in case 5445428?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $17,593.08 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5445428?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5445428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13627496-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5445428?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Kirti Karishma Diran at 34A Landon Avenue, Mangere East,

How much money was awarded in case 5445428?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $17,593.08 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5445428?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5445428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13627496-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

34A Landon Avenue, Mangere East, Auckland 2024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5445428 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5445428 — net $16,021.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 20.5.2026	$17,593.08	Rent arrears to 20.5.2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$16,021.08
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$16,021.08

Order

The tenancy of Kirti Karishma Diran at 34A Landon Avenue, Mangere East, Auckland 2024 is terminated, and possession is granted to Tbt Property Management Limited As Agent For Haji Shamsher Ali, immediately.
Kirti Karishma Diran must pay Tbt Property Management Limited As Agent For Haji Shamsher Ali $16,021.08 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (BN-17433696) to Tbt Property Management Limited As Agent For Haji Shamsher Ali immediately.

Reasons

Mr Singh, representing the landlord, attended the video conference hearing. The tenant did not join the hearing as per the instructions in the Notice of Hearing and so did not attend the hearing. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, outgoings, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. During the hearing, the landlord withdrew their claim for outgoings.
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.

How much rent is owing?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 20 May 2026, which is $19,547.86. As termination of the tenancy is immediate, the end of the tenancy is 20 May 2026. Mitigation of loss
There is an obligation under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) that the landlords mitigate their loss. That requirement is found in section 49 which 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.”
The question then becomes, what are the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage following a contract breach? The rules of law are summarised in Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th ed, 1975) vol 12 at [1193]–[1194]: The plaintiff must take all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss which he has sustained consequent upon the defendant’s wrong, and if he fails to do so, he cannot claim damages for any such loss which he ought reasonably to have avoided. The plaintiff is only required to act reasonably, and whether he has done so is a question of fact in the circumstances of each particular case, and not a question of law.
In British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co of London [1912] AC 673 (HL) at 689, Lord Haldane described the rule as to mitigation of loss as follows: That the law does not allow [a claimant] to recover damages to compensate him for his loss which would not have been suffered if he had taken reasonable steps to mitigate his loss. Whether a claimant has failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate is a question of fact dependent upon the particular circumstances of each case.
It is open to the Tribunal to reduce the level of rent ordered to be paid, following a finding that the landlord failed to mitigate their loss. I note for example the District Court decision of Dunn and Dunn v Beedie and Beedie CIV-2014-088- 000349. In that case the Tribunal determined that: In this instance the Beedies breached the agreement by falling into rent arrears. Mr & Mrs Dunn took some steps but failed to take the ultimate step, which was to terminate the tenancy. In recognition of this failure to properly mitigate the loss I have reduced the amount of rent arrears owed by 10%.
The Dunns’ appealed the Tribunal’s decision to the District Court. What happened then was somewhat unusual because the Beedies requested that the appeal be found in the landlords favour thereby requiring that they pay the full arrears to the landlord, but the Court commented that: I note in passing that the adjudicator could not be faulted for rightly pointing to s 49 of the Act and there have been cases where that clause has worked to reduce rent arrears where failure to mitigate exists.
In this case, the rent fell into arrears from February 2025, with the last rent payment being made by the tenant on 18 June 2025, about 8 months before the landlord filed this application.
The property manager said that management of the property returned to the owner in June 2025 and returned to their property management company in February 2026, so the owner was managing the property during the period that the rent arrears escalated significantly, when the tenant did not pay any rent. The property manager said he was not sure what steps, if any, had been taken by the owner to mitigate their loss in terms of rent arrears during the period the owner was managing the property. There was evidence provided of 2 x 14-day notices issued by the property manager to the tenant in February 2026, before the application was filed, however.
There is insufficient evidence provided to show the owner took any steps to mitigate their loss when they were managing the property. The obligation to mitigate loss obviously applies to owners as well as property managers. The rent arrears have been allowed to grow significantly without the landlord mitigating the situation by seeking to terminate the tenancy much earlier.
In the circumstances and from the evidence provided, I find that the landlord has failed to mitigate their loss regarding rent arrears. As such, I reduce the rent arrears owing by the tenant in the amount of $19,547.86 by 10% to $17,593.08.
Therefore, the tenant is to pay the landlord a total of $17,593.08 in rent arrears to 20 May 2026, which is the end of the tenancy. Filing fee
Because Tbt Property Management Limited As Agent For Haji Shamsher Ali has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Refund of the bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (BN-17433696) to Tbt Property Management Limited As Agent For Haji Shamsher Ali immediately.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5445428 — net $16,021.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 20.5.2026	$17,593.08	Rent arrears to 20.5.2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$16,021.08
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$16,021.08

Order

The tenancy of Kirti Karishma Diran at 34A Landon Avenue, Mangere East, Auckland 2024 is terminated, and possession is granted to Tbt Property Management Limited As Agent For Haji Shamsher Ali, immediately.
Kirti Karishma Diran must pay Tbt Property Management Limited As Agent For Haji Shamsher Ali $16,021.08 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (BN-17433696) to Tbt Property Management Limited As Agent For Haji Shamsher Ali immediately.

Reasons

Mr Singh, representing the landlord, attended the video conference hearing. The tenant did not join the hearing as per the instructions in the Notice of Hearing and so did not attend the hearing. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, outgoings, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. During the hearing, the landlord withdrew their claim for outgoings.
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.

How much rent is owing?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 20 May 2026, which is $19,547.86. As termination of the tenancy is immediate, the end of the tenancy is 20 May 2026. Mitigation of loss
There is an obligation under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) that the landlords mitigate their loss. That requirement is found in section 49 which 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.”
The question then becomes, what are the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage following a contract breach? The rules of law are summarised in Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th ed, 1975) vol 12 at [1193]–[1194]: The plaintiff must take all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss which he has sustained consequent upon the defendant’s wrong, and if he fails to do so, he cannot claim damages for any such loss which he ought reasonably to have avoided. The plaintiff is only required to act reasonably, and whether he has done so is a question of fact in the circumstances of each particular case, and not a question of law.
In British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co of London [1912] AC 673 (HL) at 689, Lord Haldane described the rule as to mitigation of loss as follows: That the law does not allow [a claimant] to recover damages to compensate him for his loss which would not have been suffered if he had taken reasonable steps to mitigate his loss. Whether a claimant has failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate is a question of fact dependent upon the particular circumstances of each case.
It is open to the Tribunal to reduce the level of rent ordered to be paid, following a finding that the landlord failed to mitigate their loss. I note for example the District Court decision of Dunn and Dunn v Beedie and Beedie CIV-2014-088- 000349. In that case the Tribunal determined that: In this instance the Beedies breached the agreement by falling into rent arrears. Mr & Mrs Dunn took some steps but failed to take the ultimate step, which was to terminate the tenancy. In recognition of this failure to properly mitigate the loss I have reduced the amount of rent arrears owed by 10%.
The Dunns’ appealed the Tribunal’s decision to the District Court. What happened then was somewhat unusual because the Beedies requested that the appeal be found in the landlords favour thereby requiring that they pay the full arrears to the landlord, but the Court commented that: I note in passing that the adjudicator could not be faulted for rightly pointing to s 49 of the Act and there have been cases where that clause has worked to reduce rent arrears where failure to mitigate exists.
In this case, the rent fell into arrears from February 2025, with the last rent payment being made by the tenant on 18 June 2025, about 8 months before the landlord filed this application.
The property manager said that management of the property returned to the owner in June 2025 and returned to their property management company in February 2026, so the owner was managing the property during the period that the rent arrears escalated significantly, when the tenant did not pay any rent. The property manager said he was not sure what steps, if any, had been taken by the owner to mitigate their loss in terms of rent arrears during the period the owner was managing the property. There was evidence provided of 2 x 14-day notices issued by the property manager to the tenant in February 2026, before the application was filed, however.
There is insufficient evidence provided to show the owner took any steps to mitigate their loss when they were managing the property. The obligation to mitigate loss obviously applies to owners as well as property managers. The rent arrears have been allowed to grow significantly without the landlord mitigating the situation by seeking to terminate the tenancy much earlier.
In the circumstances and from the evidence provided, I find that the landlord has failed to mitigate their loss regarding rent arrears. As such, I reduce the rent arrears owing by the tenant in the amount of $19,547.86 by 10% to $17,593.08.
Therefore, the tenant is to pay the landlord a total of $17,593.08 in rent arrears to 20 May 2026, which is the end of the tenancy. Filing fee
Because Tbt Property Management Limited As Agent For Haji Shamsher Ali has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Refund of the bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (BN-17433696) to Tbt Property Management Limited As Agent For Haji Shamsher Ali immediately.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5445428 — Rent arrears at 34A Landon Avenue, Mangere East, Auckland 2024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5445428 — Rent arrears at 34A Landon Avenue, Mangere East, Auckland 2024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much rent is owing?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much rent is owing?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions