What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5465369 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5465369?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $10,146.43 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $2,332.39 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465369?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465369?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13749412-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5465369 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5465369?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $10,146.43 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $2,332.39 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465369?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465369?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13749412-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

22 Tawa Street, Kaikohe, Kaikohe 0405 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5465369 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5465369 — net $10,526.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 12 January 2026	$10,146.43	Rent arrears to 12 January 2026
Water rates: 20/11/2022 – 20/11/2025	$2,332.39	Water rates: 20/11/2022 – 20/11/2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,526.82
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,526.82

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Valdarose Te Irata Moewaka George and Charon Hepi must pay [The landlord/s] $10,526.82 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 15 June 2026. The tenant did not attend.
The tenancy began on 29 May 2022 and ended on 12 January 2026.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, refund of the bond, 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) imposes an obligation on a tenant to pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement.
Where a tenant fails to pay rent as and when it is due, section 49 RTA requires a landlord to take all reasonable steps to limit the loss arising from the tenant’s breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
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. ... [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 landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves rent arrears are $10,146.43 up to 12 January 2026. The tenancy ended on this date, after the tenant gave 21 days’ notice on 22 December 2025.
Despite the high level of rent arrears, I am satisfied that the landlord has acted reasonably to mitigate their loss.
The tenant has been in a constant state of rent arrears since 11 December 2022. At one time, rent arrears reached as high as $12,580.00. At first, the landlord tried to deal with the matter themselves by discussing the rent arrears with the tenant. When this did not work, they filed two applications for termination with the Tribunal.
The first application was filed on 4 August 2023. Rent arrears were $11,720.00 on this date. A conditional termination order was made, which the tenant stuck to until 12 November 2023.
The second application was filed on 13 March 2024. Rent arrears were $11,818.58 on this date. Again, a conditional termination order was made, which the tenant stuck to until 25 November 2025. Rent arrears decreased to $7,035.00. Unfortunately, the tenant stopped paying consistently after this date.
The landlord gave evidence that they did not enforce the conditional termination order immediately, because the tenant had consistently made payments for one and a half years between 22 March 2024 – 25 November 2025. They believed the default to be a slip up and that the tenant would get back on track. It was also close to Christmas time and the landlord struggled with the idea of terminating the tenancy at such short notice at this time. I find the actions of the landlord were reasonable in these circumstances.
Despite the fact that rent arrears are high, the landlord has taken reasonable steps to mitigate their loss. The have tried to recover the debt themselves and sought the assistance of the Tribunal twice when this did not work. Although the landlord did not enforce the most recent conditional termination order immediately when it was breached, this was reasonable in the circumstances, given the tenant’s prior history of compliance and the fact it was close to Christmas.
For all of these reasons, the landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $10,146.43.

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates invoices?

The landlord submitted copies of original invoices from the water rates provider. These prove that the tenant owes $3,498.58 in outstanding water rates invoices for the period 20 November 2022 - 20 November 2025.
Unlike the rent arrears, I am not satisfied the landlord has acted reasonably to mitigate their loss in respect of the outstanding water rates invoices. The debt is high and dates back to almost 4 years ago. Other than trying to discuss the matter with the tenant, the landlord does not appear to have taken any further steps to mitigate their loss. The landlord did not include outstanding water rates invoices with either of their two previous applications to the Tribunal made in 2023 and 2024. As a result, outstanding water rates invoices have continued to accrue, to the point they now total $3,498.58.
There needs to be a reduction to the total amount of unpaid water rates invoices to reflect the landlord’s failure to mitigate their loss. I find one third to be reasonable.
For all of these reasons, the landlord’s claim for outstanding water rates invoices is granted for $2,332.39. Filing fee and name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason, I must grant their request for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5465369 — net $10,526.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 12 January 2026	$10,146.43	Rent arrears to 12 January 2026
Water rates: 20/11/2022 – 20/11/2025	$2,332.39	Water rates: 20/11/2022 – 20/11/2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$10,526.82
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,526.82

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Valdarose Te Irata Moewaka George and Charon Hepi must pay [The landlord/s] $10,526.82 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 15 June 2026. The tenant did not attend.
The tenancy began on 29 May 2022 and ended on 12 January 2026.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, refund of the bond, 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) imposes an obligation on a tenant to pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement.
Where a tenant fails to pay rent as and when it is due, section 49 RTA requires a landlord to take all reasonable steps to limit the loss arising from the tenant’s breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
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. ... [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 landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves rent arrears are $10,146.43 up to 12 January 2026. The tenancy ended on this date, after the tenant gave 21 days’ notice on 22 December 2025.
Despite the high level of rent arrears, I am satisfied that the landlord has acted reasonably to mitigate their loss.
The tenant has been in a constant state of rent arrears since 11 December 2022. At one time, rent arrears reached as high as $12,580.00. At first, the landlord tried to deal with the matter themselves by discussing the rent arrears with the tenant. When this did not work, they filed two applications for termination with the Tribunal.
The first application was filed on 4 August 2023. Rent arrears were $11,720.00 on this date. A conditional termination order was made, which the tenant stuck to until 12 November 2023.
The second application was filed on 13 March 2024. Rent arrears were $11,818.58 on this date. Again, a conditional termination order was made, which the tenant stuck to until 25 November 2025. Rent arrears decreased to $7,035.00. Unfortunately, the tenant stopped paying consistently after this date.
The landlord gave evidence that they did not enforce the conditional termination order immediately, because the tenant had consistently made payments for one and a half years between 22 March 2024 – 25 November 2025. They believed the default to be a slip up and that the tenant would get back on track. It was also close to Christmas time and the landlord struggled with the idea of terminating the tenancy at such short notice at this time. I find the actions of the landlord were reasonable in these circumstances.
Despite the fact that rent arrears are high, the landlord has taken reasonable steps to mitigate their loss. The have tried to recover the debt themselves and sought the assistance of the Tribunal twice when this did not work. Although the landlord did not enforce the most recent conditional termination order immediately when it was breached, this was reasonable in the circumstances, given the tenant’s prior history of compliance and the fact it was close to Christmas.
For all of these reasons, the landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $10,146.43.

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates invoices?

The landlord submitted copies of original invoices from the water rates provider. These prove that the tenant owes $3,498.58 in outstanding water rates invoices for the period 20 November 2022 - 20 November 2025.
Unlike the rent arrears, I am not satisfied the landlord has acted reasonably to mitigate their loss in respect of the outstanding water rates invoices. The debt is high and dates back to almost 4 years ago. Other than trying to discuss the matter with the tenant, the landlord does not appear to have taken any further steps to mitigate their loss. The landlord did not include outstanding water rates invoices with either of their two previous applications to the Tribunal made in 2023 and 2024. As a result, outstanding water rates invoices have continued to accrue, to the point they now total $3,498.58.
There needs to be a reduction to the total amount of unpaid water rates invoices to reflect the landlord’s failure to mitigate their loss. I find one third to be reasonable.
For all of these reasons, the landlord’s claim for outstanding water rates invoices is granted for $2,332.39. Filing fee and name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason, I must grant their request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5465369 — Rent arrears at 22 Tawa Street, Kaikohe, Kaikohe 0405

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5465369 — Rent arrears at 22 Tawa Street, Kaikohe, Kaikohe 0405

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates invoices?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

How much does the tenant owe in outstanding water rates invoices?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions