What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5552089 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $28,693.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5552089?

Rent Arrears: $31,293.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5552089?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5552089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14077436-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5552089 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $28,693.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5552089?

Rent Arrears: $31,293.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5552089?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5552089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14077436-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

83 Otonga Road, Springfield, Rotorua 3015 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5552089 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5552089 — net $28,693.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13.8.2026	$31,293.00	Rent arrears to 13.8.2026
Net award	$28,693.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28,693.00

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $28,693.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (3403698-011) to [The tenant/s] landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Mr Dickson, the landlord, attended the video conference hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing as per the instructions in the Notice of Hearing. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
The landlord said at the start of the hearing that the tenant has left the property and so he withdrew the claim for termination of the tenancy.
The landlord said he would take 13 August 2026 as the date the tenancy ended, though he suspected the tenant may have left on 15 August 2026.

What rent is owed?

The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 13 August 2026, the end of the tenancy, which is $34,770.00. Mitigation of loss
There is an obligation under the 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 around 3 weeks after the tenancy started on 23 August 2024, and has not returned to a zero balance since then to date.
The landlord provided copies of 4 x 14-day notices issued to the tenant about rent arrears. The landlord said that, after he issued a 14-day notice, the tenant would then at times manage to get funds from WINZ and make a lump sum payment, so he then did not proceed further. The landlord indicated the tenant was in and out of jobs, at times on the benefit, was in and out of hospital, had young children and both her parents passed away during the tenancy. Due to these personal circumstances of the tenant, the landlord said he was reluctant to take further steps to end the tenancy. The landlord acknowledged that he had not sought to end the tenancy earlier than this application, despite rent arrears growing significantly, as the tenant continued to not pay rent for large blocks of time. The landlord further agreed that he did not take any further action, other than issuing the 14-day notices and keeping in constant communication with the tenant about rent arrears.
Even allowing for the personal circumstances of the tenant, as indicated by the landlord, the rent arrears have been allowed to grow significantly over the period of the tenancy without the landlord mitigating the situation by seeking to end the tenancy earlier. This is ultimately not in the interest of either party.
In the circumstances and based on the evidence, I find the landlord has failed to properly mitigate their loss regarding rent arrears. As such, I reduce the rent arrears owing by the tenant in the amount of $34,770.00 by 10% to $31,293.00.
Therefore, the tenant is to pay the landlord a total of $31,293.00 in rent arrears to 13 August 2026. Refund of the bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (3403698-011) to [The tenant/s] landlord/s] immediately.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5552089 — net $28,693.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13.8.2026	$31,293.00	Rent arrears to 13.8.2026
Net award	$28,693.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28,693.00

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $28,693.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (3403698-011) to [The tenant/s] landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Mr Dickson, the landlord, attended the video conference hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing as per the instructions in the Notice of Hearing. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
The landlord said at the start of the hearing that the tenant has left the property and so he withdrew the claim for termination of the tenancy.
The landlord said he would take 13 August 2026 as the date the tenancy ended, though he suspected the tenant may have left on 15 August 2026.

What rent is owed?

The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 13 August 2026, the end of the tenancy, which is $34,770.00. Mitigation of loss
There is an obligation under the 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 around 3 weeks after the tenancy started on 23 August 2024, and has not returned to a zero balance since then to date.
The landlord provided copies of 4 x 14-day notices issued to the tenant about rent arrears. The landlord said that, after he issued a 14-day notice, the tenant would then at times manage to get funds from WINZ and make a lump sum payment, so he then did not proceed further. The landlord indicated the tenant was in and out of jobs, at times on the benefit, was in and out of hospital, had young children and both her parents passed away during the tenancy. Due to these personal circumstances of the tenant, the landlord said he was reluctant to take further steps to end the tenancy. The landlord acknowledged that he had not sought to end the tenancy earlier than this application, despite rent arrears growing significantly, as the tenant continued to not pay rent for large blocks of time. The landlord further agreed that he did not take any further action, other than issuing the 14-day notices and keeping in constant communication with the tenant about rent arrears.
Even allowing for the personal circumstances of the tenant, as indicated by the landlord, the rent arrears have been allowed to grow significantly over the period of the tenancy without the landlord mitigating the situation by seeking to end the tenancy earlier. This is ultimately not in the interest of either party.
In the circumstances and based on the evidence, I find the landlord has failed to properly mitigate their loss regarding rent arrears. As such, I reduce the rent arrears owing by the tenant in the amount of $34,770.00 by 10% to $31,293.00.
Therefore, the tenant is to pay the landlord a total of $31,293.00 in rent arrears to 13 August 2026. Refund of the bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (3403698-011) to [The tenant/s] landlord/s] immediately.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5552089 — Rent arrears at 83 Otonga Road, Springfield, Rotorua 3015

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5552089 — Rent arrears at 83 Otonga Road, Springfield, Rotorua 3015

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What rent is owed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What rent is owed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.