What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4983453?

The tribunal order states: Joshua English-Hilton and Margaret Hilton must pay The Greenwoods House

How much money was awarded in case 4983453?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4983453?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4983453?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10797579-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4983453?

The tribunal order states: Joshua English-Hilton and Margaret Hilton must pay The Greenwoods House

How much money was awarded in case 4983453?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4983453?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4983453?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10797579-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

595 Manukau Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4983453 — Rent arrears

Order

Joshua English-Hilton and Margaret Hilton must pay The Greenwoods House Limited $17,686.93 immediately, being rent arrears to 5 September 2024.
The Tenancy of Joshua English-Hilton and Margaret Hilton at 595 Manukau Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023 is terminated, and possession is granted to The Greenwoods House Limited immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing.
The Landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and rent arrears.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated: s 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The Landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The summary shows as at 29/07/2023 the arrears were $14,300, and from 22/06 to 17/08/2024 a further $7,100.00 arrears accrued.
The Landlord issued the Tenants with a 14-day notice on 01/08/2024.
Pursuant to s 49 of the Act the Landlord is required to mitigate their loss.
The Tenants are mother and son. The Landlord says one of the tenants had cancer and he could not bring himself to terminate the tenancy. Then the tenant with cancer died. The son was living at the property and the Landlord applied to terminate the Tenancy. The Tenant’s son then abandoned the property, sometime in August.
Section 49 of the Act requires a landlord to take reasonable steps to mitigate their loss once a breach of the tenancy agreement occurs. This includes ending a tenancy or taking steps to re-let the property to avoid further accrual of arrears.
Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726 and Housing New Zealand v Witika [1995] DCR 307 establish that failure to act in a timely manner to recover possession or mitigate the accruing rent arrears can lead to a reduction in the recoverable amount.
In Huang v Ashworth, the Court found that even though the landlord had been sympathetic and engaged in good-faith discussions to resolve arrears, the ongoing accumulation of arrears due to inaction over time constituted a failure to mitigate. The failure to apply to terminate the tenancy when arrears first began growing was seen as unreasonable after a certain point.
While sympathy for a tenant’s circumstance may be understandable, it does not absolve the landlord of their obligation to mitigate loss, particularly where the loss is so considerable, the rent being $1,300.00/week.
The obligation to mitigate applies regardless of whether a tenant is sick, deceased or alive. Sympathy cannot override legal duties.
In Huang v Ashworth, the landlord’s initial leniency, based on the tenant’s promises to pay, was deemed reasonable up to a point, but the continued accrual of arrears without termination eventually became unreasonable. Duty to mitigate loss evolves over time, depending on whether the landlord's actions remain reasonable in light of an ongoing breach, and there is a need, in a case like this, to recognise when a Landlord does start to take reasonable steps to mitigate its loss.
The Landlord allowed the arrears to build up to $18,800 before issuing the 14- day notice to remedy arrears on 1 August 2024. After issuing the 14-day notice on 1 August 2024, the Tenants did not pay the rent or remedy the arrears. The Landlord did not apply to terminate until 25 August 2024, and there was an additional $3,900 in unpaid rent at the application date.
There is a further $2,228.60 as at today’s date, however, no one has been living in the home, according to the Landlord. The premises were seemly abandoned after the Landlord’s application was lodged.
The Landlord refers to earlier notices and conversations with the Tenant. Only the 1 August 2024 notice has been supplied by the Landlord.
Pre-notice arrears (22 June to 1 August 2024): The Landlord failed to act in a timely manner, allowing the arrears to reach $18,800 without taking formal action. Compassionate grounds, while understandable, do not override the obligation to mitigate. As established in Huang v Ashworth and Housing New Zealand v Witika, failure to act when the arrears became significant constitutes a failure to mitigate. A one-third reduction is applied to this period.
Post-notice arrears (1 August to 17 August 2024): After issuing the 14-day notice, the Landlord delayed applying for termination. Some effort was made but not timely enough to prevent the continued accrual of arrears. Although action was taken, the delay warrants a 25% reduction for this period.
Post-termination application (from 17 August 2024): No reduction applies as, while no one has been living at the property, the Landlord did not think he was allowed to retake possession of the property before the hearing.
The following amounts are awarded for rent, with reductions applied: a. Pre-notice arrears: $18,800 reduced by one-third ($12,533.33 recoverable). b. Post-notice arrears: $3,900 reduced by 25% ($2,925 recoverable). c. Post-termination period (waiting for the hearing): $2,228.60 not recoverable.
The total rent recoverable: $17,686.93.

Order

Joshua English-Hilton and Margaret Hilton must pay The Greenwoods House Limited $17,686.93 immediately, being rent arrears to 5 September 2024.
The Tenancy of Joshua English-Hilton and Margaret Hilton at 595 Manukau Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023 is terminated, and possession is granted to The Greenwoods House Limited immediately.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing.
The Landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and rent arrears.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated: s 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The Landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The summary shows as at 29/07/2023 the arrears were $14,300, and from 22/06 to 17/08/2024 a further $7,100.00 arrears accrued.
The Landlord issued the Tenants with a 14-day notice on 01/08/2024.
Pursuant to s 49 of the Act the Landlord is required to mitigate their loss.
The Tenants are mother and son. The Landlord says one of the tenants had cancer and he could not bring himself to terminate the tenancy. Then the tenant with cancer died. The son was living at the property and the Landlord applied to terminate the Tenancy. The Tenant’s son then abandoned the property, sometime in August.
Section 49 of the Act requires a landlord to take reasonable steps to mitigate their loss once a breach of the tenancy agreement occurs. This includes ending a tenancy or taking steps to re-let the property to avoid further accrual of arrears.
Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726 and Housing New Zealand v Witika [1995] DCR 307 establish that failure to act in a timely manner to recover possession or mitigate the accruing rent arrears can lead to a reduction in the recoverable amount.
In Huang v Ashworth, the Court found that even though the landlord had been sympathetic and engaged in good-faith discussions to resolve arrears, the ongoing accumulation of arrears due to inaction over time constituted a failure to mitigate. The failure to apply to terminate the tenancy when arrears first began growing was seen as unreasonable after a certain point.
While sympathy for a tenant’s circumstance may be understandable, it does not absolve the landlord of their obligation to mitigate loss, particularly where the loss is so considerable, the rent being $1,300.00/week.
The obligation to mitigate applies regardless of whether a tenant is sick, deceased or alive. Sympathy cannot override legal duties.
In Huang v Ashworth, the landlord’s initial leniency, based on the tenant’s promises to pay, was deemed reasonable up to a point, but the continued accrual of arrears without termination eventually became unreasonable. Duty to mitigate loss evolves over time, depending on whether the landlord's actions remain reasonable in light of an ongoing breach, and there is a need, in a case like this, to recognise when a Landlord does start to take reasonable steps to mitigate its loss.
The Landlord allowed the arrears to build up to $18,800 before issuing the 14- day notice to remedy arrears on 1 August 2024. After issuing the 14-day notice on 1 August 2024, the Tenants did not pay the rent or remedy the arrears. The Landlord did not apply to terminate until 25 August 2024, and there was an additional $3,900 in unpaid rent at the application date.
There is a further $2,228.60 as at today’s date, however, no one has been living in the home, according to the Landlord. The premises were seemly abandoned after the Landlord’s application was lodged.
The Landlord refers to earlier notices and conversations with the Tenant. Only the 1 August 2024 notice has been supplied by the Landlord.
Pre-notice arrears (22 June to 1 August 2024): The Landlord failed to act in a timely manner, allowing the arrears to reach $18,800 without taking formal action. Compassionate grounds, while understandable, do not override the obligation to mitigate. As established in Huang v Ashworth and Housing New Zealand v Witika, failure to act when the arrears became significant constitutes a failure to mitigate. A one-third reduction is applied to this period.
Post-notice arrears (1 August to 17 August 2024): After issuing the 14-day notice, the Landlord delayed applying for termination. Some effort was made but not timely enough to prevent the continued accrual of arrears. Although action was taken, the delay warrants a 25% reduction for this period.
Post-termination application (from 17 August 2024): No reduction applies as, while no one has been living at the property, the Landlord did not think he was allowed to retake possession of the property before the hearing.
The following amounts are awarded for rent, with reductions applied: a. Pre-notice arrears: $18,800 reduced by one-third ($12,533.33 recoverable). b. Post-notice arrears: $3,900 reduced by 25% ($2,925 recoverable). c. Post-termination period (waiting for the hearing): $2,228.60 not recoverable.
The total rent recoverable: $17,686.93.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4983453 — Rent arrears at 595 Manukau Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4983453 — Rent arrears at 595 Manukau Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions