What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5459937 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay The Rent Shop Dunedin Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5459937?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $420.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5459937?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5459937?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13780538-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5459937 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay The Rent Shop Dunedin Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5459937?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $420.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5459937?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5459937?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13780538-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Manchester Street, Bradford, Dunedin 9011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5459937 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5459937 — net $1,048.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears capped as at 26 March 2026 (reduced	$3,000.00	Rent arrears capped as at 26 March 2026 (reduced
Rubbish removal	$420.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,048.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,048.00

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay The Rent Shop Dunedin Limited As Agent For Felicia & Tom Alkin $1,048.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (BN-00104601) to The Rent Shop Dunedin Limited As Agent For Felicia & Tom Alkin immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The owners joined the agent for the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The fixed-term tenancy ended on 13 May 2026. The landlord provided rent records the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

So how much rent is owing?

The landlord provided a rent summary that was not disputed as inaccurate. To 13 May 2026 the rent in arrears was $7,114.29.
The tenant submitted she was verbally released from any continued fixed-term obligations by a prior agent in later 2025. I do not consider this proven, nor more than likely. The owners refuted they had any intention of moving back in as claimed advised to the tenant. Regardless, it is a reasonable expectation any agent would inform the tenant of their right to remain regardless of any owner intention as the fixed-term binds both parties.
However, the circumstances here do not justify, in my mind, an order of all rent as due.
When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.
The submissions raise some equitable concerns given the agent recommendation to the owners of a suitable replacement on 6 March 2026 and then a second option on 13 March 2026. Both were rejected by the owners. The first was because the owners desired a one-year fixed-term while the prospective tenant would only fix for six months. At this stage there was only some three months remaining on the fixed term of this tenancy. The second prospective tenant appears rejected solely on grounds that may have been counter to the Human Rights Act 1993 and s 12 RTA. Both prospective tenants are considered “like for like” replacements for this tenancy.
Both rejections by the owners do not appear to have any reasonable grounds. Put another way, if I was being asked to consider if the landlord had breached s 5459937 3 43B(6) RTA, having unreasonably withheld consent for assignment, I would find that to be the case here.
In Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726 the District Court confirmed there is a duty to mitigate for rent arrears (see section 49 Residential Tenancies Act 1986). The Court confirmed the test of what the landlord ought to do to mitigate its loss is a factual one and depends on: 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 submissions here gave rise to a possibility the landlord/owner may have failed to mitigate its loss in respect of the growing rent arrears. The evidence from the agent of open home activity was as expected and comprehensive. The issue for consideration is the rejection of two prospective tenants by the owners after the agents vetted and forwarded them for consideration. This rejection was without any apparent reasonable grounds. Acceptance and a new tenancy would have ended this tenant’s liability for rent.
Any preference of the owner for a “higher” calibre of tenant is theirs to determine but expecting extended rent from the tenant during a longer than necessary vacant period is considered untenable.
I consider a reduction to the rent arrears payable, due to the unreasonable rejection of two prospective tenants being a failure to mitigate the landlord’s loss is appropriate.

How much rent arrears should be paid?

I award $3,000 as tenant liability for rent arrears. This is calculated as assuming the first prospective tenant should have been treated as an acceptable new tenant from 6 March 2026. I have allowed three weeks from any such acceptance for the completion of onboarding and the new tenancy commencing.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided an invoice of $420.00 that establishes the cost of disposing the abandoned items as https://tta.today/download/huang-v-ashworth-2024-nzdc-15726/ 5459937 4 evidenced in the photos. While the tenant disputes some of the items, I find it more than likely the evidence and costs are proven and must be awarded.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
The landlord has been substantially successful in its application and I return its fee to it.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5459937 — net $1,048.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears capped as at 26 March 2026 (reduced	$3,000.00	Rent arrears capped as at 26 March 2026 (reduced
Rubbish removal	$420.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,048.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,048.00

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay The Rent Shop Dunedin Limited As Agent For Felicia & Tom Alkin $1,048.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (BN-00104601) to The Rent Shop Dunedin Limited As Agent For Felicia & Tom Alkin immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The owners joined the agent for the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The fixed-term tenancy ended on 13 May 2026. The landlord provided rent records the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

So how much rent is owing?

The landlord provided a rent summary that was not disputed as inaccurate. To 13 May 2026 the rent in arrears was $7,114.29.
The tenant submitted she was verbally released from any continued fixed-term obligations by a prior agent in later 2025. I do not consider this proven, nor more than likely. The owners refuted they had any intention of moving back in as claimed advised to the tenant. Regardless, it is a reasonable expectation any agent would inform the tenant of their right to remain regardless of any owner intention as the fixed-term binds both parties.
However, the circumstances here do not justify, in my mind, an order of all rent as due.
When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.
The submissions raise some equitable concerns given the agent recommendation to the owners of a suitable replacement on 6 March 2026 and then a second option on 13 March 2026. Both were rejected by the owners. The first was because the owners desired a one-year fixed-term while the prospective tenant would only fix for six months. At this stage there was only some three months remaining on the fixed term of this tenancy. The second prospective tenant appears rejected solely on grounds that may have been counter to the Human Rights Act 1993 and s 12 RTA. Both prospective tenants are considered “like for like” replacements for this tenancy.
Both rejections by the owners do not appear to have any reasonable grounds. Put another way, if I was being asked to consider if the landlord had breached s 5459937 3 43B(6) RTA, having unreasonably withheld consent for assignment, I would find that to be the case here.
In Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726 the District Court confirmed there is a duty to mitigate for rent arrears (see section 49 Residential Tenancies Act 1986). The Court confirmed the test of what the landlord ought to do to mitigate its loss is a factual one and depends on: 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 submissions here gave rise to a possibility the landlord/owner may have failed to mitigate its loss in respect of the growing rent arrears. The evidence from the agent of open home activity was as expected and comprehensive. The issue for consideration is the rejection of two prospective tenants by the owners after the agents vetted and forwarded them for consideration. This rejection was without any apparent reasonable grounds. Acceptance and a new tenancy would have ended this tenant’s liability for rent.
Any preference of the owner for a “higher” calibre of tenant is theirs to determine but expecting extended rent from the tenant during a longer than necessary vacant period is considered untenable.
I consider a reduction to the rent arrears payable, due to the unreasonable rejection of two prospective tenants being a failure to mitigate the landlord’s loss is appropriate.

How much rent arrears should be paid?

I award $3,000 as tenant liability for rent arrears. This is calculated as assuming the first prospective tenant should have been treated as an acceptable new tenant from 6 March 2026. I have allowed three weeks from any such acceptance for the completion of onboarding and the new tenancy commencing.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided an invoice of $420.00 that establishes the cost of disposing the abandoned items as https://tta.today/download/huang-v-ashworth-2024-nzdc-15726/ 5459937 4 evidenced in the photos. While the tenant disputes some of the items, I find it more than likely the evidence and costs are proven and must be awarded.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
The landlord has been substantially successful in its application and I return its fee to it.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5459937 — Rent arrears at 20 Manchester Street, Bradford, Dunedin 9011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5459937 — Rent arrears at 20 Manchester Street, Bradford, Dunedin 9011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

So how much rent is owing?

How much rent arrears should be paid?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

So how much rent is owing?

How much rent arrears should be paid?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions