What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5181813?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Monique Tapara at 406 Avenue Road West, Hastings, Hastings

How much money was awarded in case 5181813?

Electricity: $1,110.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $12,750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5181813?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5181813?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11637146-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5181813?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Monique Tapara at 406 Avenue Road West, Hastings, Hastings

How much money was awarded in case 5181813?

Electricity: $1,110.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $12,750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5181813?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5181813?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11637146-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

406 Avenue Road West, Hastings, Hastings 4122 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5181813 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5181813 — net $13,887.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 23 January 2025	$12,750.00	Rent arrears to 23 January 2025
Electricity	$1,110.25	Electricity
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$13,887.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$13,887.25

Order

The tenancy of Monique Tapara at 406 Avenue Road West, Hastings, Hastings 4122 is terminated, and possession is granted to Mark Johnson, immediately.
Monique Tapara must pay Mark Johnson $13,887.25 immediately, calculated in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The tenant was called twice on the number specified in the Notice of Hearing, which was duly served to her e-mail address. Neither call was answered. Unsuccessful attempts were also made to call the tenant on other numbers given to the landlord by her.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and compensation for electricity use.
The landlord was unable to provide a copy of the tenancy agreement signed by the tenant. He has however provided a copy of the agreement which was signed by him and sent to the tenant on 20 September 2024. The tenant confirmed that she could come and sign the agreement the next day. The landlord says she did, but kept the signed agreement.
The terms of the agreement are consistent with those previously outlined by the landlord and confirmed by the tenant.
I am satisfied that there was an agreement between the parties under which the tenant would rent the premises, fully furnished, from 27 September 2024, at a weekly rent of $750.00, including wi-fi but excluding power.
The landlord’s evidence satisfies me that the tenant did not pay the bond and has paid no rent or for any electricity used. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy began on 27 September 2024. This application as brought by the landlord on 27 February 2025. The landlord would have been entitled to seek termination of the tenancy after the tenant was more than 21 days in arrears.
That gives rise to the question of whether the landlord has met his obligation under s.49 RTA which provides that, “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.”
In Huang v Ashworth 1 the Tribunal had determined that the landlord should not be entitled to recover more than 3 months’ rent arrears.
On appeal to the District Court 2 , the Court confirmed that a landlord has an obligation to mitigate rent arrears losses. In circumstances similar to this case, where the landlord had made several attempts to address the rent arears directly with the tenant, the Court said at paragraph [18], “I consider that [the landlord’s] attempts to resolve the issue of rent arrears without resorting to eviction were reasonable, especially for a tenancy that had lasted close to four years. But I qualify that: it is reasonable only up to a point. We were tenant repeatedly breaches promises to make up arrears and instead additional arrears are incurred there comes a point when it is being naive 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'm satisfied of balance of probabilities that there was some fairly to mitigate loss but less than that assessed by the Tribunal (3 months).” 1 Huang v Ashworth [2023] NZTT 4470826, 4599009 2 Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726
The Tribunal must assess, in the circumstances of each case, whether the steps taken by a party to mitigate claimed losses, were reasonable.
Here, I find that the relevant factors are: a. the tenant did not pay the bond or rent in advance at the beginning of the tenancy and in fact paid no rent at all – that is different than in Huang, where the tenant had a previously sound rent payment record; b. the landlord made several attempts to engage with the tenant to have the rent arrears paid, in response to which the tenant gave the landlord potentially plausible explanations for her inability to have rent payments set up through WINZ; c. in February 2025 the landlord attended a meeting with the tenant and WINZ to try and work through the barriers to setting up the WINZ rent payments. He became aware then that the tenant was not eligible for WINZ support with the rent, from that at that point the landlord brought the application to terminate the tenancy. d. the premises were being sold. Had the tenancy been terminated, the premises would not have been able to be re let and it was therefore in the landlord’s financial interests to maintain the tenancy, and the tenant’s liability for rent, for as long as possible prior to the sale completing.
The steps taken by the landlord to try and address the rent arrears were reasonable. However, as was found by the District Court in Huang, in my view the tenant’s persistent failure to pay any rent, despite the assurances given, meant that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to take steps to end the tenancy before he did.
My assessment is that even with the steps the landlord took to try and address the rent arrears and the assurances and explanations he was given by the tenant, 3 months of non-payment is a more than sufficient period to trigger a need to bring the tenancy to an end. Adding to that a further month to have an application determined by the Tribunal, had the landlord taken those reasonable mitigation steps, the tenancy would have been ended with 4 months’ rent owing. The landlord’s claim should be limited to 17 weeks’ rent.
The landlord has provided electricity charge invoices. The tenant should be required to pay those charges up to the invoice for the billing period ending 29 January 2025.
Because Mark Johnson has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5181813 — net $13,887.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 23 January 2025	$12,750.00	Rent arrears to 23 January 2025
Electricity	$1,110.25	Electricity
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$13,887.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$13,887.25

Order

The tenancy of Monique Tapara at 406 Avenue Road West, Hastings, Hastings 4122 is terminated, and possession is granted to Mark Johnson, immediately.
Monique Tapara must pay Mark Johnson $13,887.25 immediately, calculated in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The tenant was called twice on the number specified in the Notice of Hearing, which was duly served to her e-mail address. Neither call was answered. Unsuccessful attempts were also made to call the tenant on other numbers given to the landlord by her.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and compensation for electricity use.
The landlord was unable to provide a copy of the tenancy agreement signed by the tenant. He has however provided a copy of the agreement which was signed by him and sent to the tenant on 20 September 2024. The tenant confirmed that she could come and sign the agreement the next day. The landlord says she did, but kept the signed agreement.
The terms of the agreement are consistent with those previously outlined by the landlord and confirmed by the tenant.
I am satisfied that there was an agreement between the parties under which the tenant would rent the premises, fully furnished, from 27 September 2024, at a weekly rent of $750.00, including wi-fi but excluding power.
The landlord’s evidence satisfies me that the tenant did not pay the bond and has paid no rent or for any electricity used. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy began on 27 September 2024. This application as brought by the landlord on 27 February 2025. The landlord would have been entitled to seek termination of the tenancy after the tenant was more than 21 days in arrears.
That gives rise to the question of whether the landlord has met his obligation under s.49 RTA which provides that, “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.”
In Huang v Ashworth 1 the Tribunal had determined that the landlord should not be entitled to recover more than 3 months’ rent arrears.
On appeal to the District Court 2 , the Court confirmed that a landlord has an obligation to mitigate rent arrears losses. In circumstances similar to this case, where the landlord had made several attempts to address the rent arears directly with the tenant, the Court said at paragraph [18], “I consider that [the landlord’s] attempts to resolve the issue of rent arrears without resorting to eviction were reasonable, especially for a tenancy that had lasted close to four years. But I qualify that: it is reasonable only up to a point. We were tenant repeatedly breaches promises to make up arrears and instead additional arrears are incurred there comes a point when it is being naive 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'm satisfied of balance of probabilities that there was some fairly to mitigate loss but less than that assessed by the Tribunal (3 months).” 1 Huang v Ashworth [2023] NZTT 4470826, 4599009 2 Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726
The Tribunal must assess, in the circumstances of each case, whether the steps taken by a party to mitigate claimed losses, were reasonable.
Here, I find that the relevant factors are: a. the tenant did not pay the bond or rent in advance at the beginning of the tenancy and in fact paid no rent at all – that is different than in Huang, where the tenant had a previously sound rent payment record; b. the landlord made several attempts to engage with the tenant to have the rent arrears paid, in response to which the tenant gave the landlord potentially plausible explanations for her inability to have rent payments set up through WINZ; c. in February 2025 the landlord attended a meeting with the tenant and WINZ to try and work through the barriers to setting up the WINZ rent payments. He became aware then that the tenant was not eligible for WINZ support with the rent, from that at that point the landlord brought the application to terminate the tenancy. d. the premises were being sold. Had the tenancy been terminated, the premises would not have been able to be re let and it was therefore in the landlord’s financial interests to maintain the tenancy, and the tenant’s liability for rent, for as long as possible prior to the sale completing.
The steps taken by the landlord to try and address the rent arrears were reasonable. However, as was found by the District Court in Huang, in my view the tenant’s persistent failure to pay any rent, despite the assurances given, meant that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to take steps to end the tenancy before he did.
My assessment is that even with the steps the landlord took to try and address the rent arrears and the assurances and explanations he was given by the tenant, 3 months of non-payment is a more than sufficient period to trigger a need to bring the tenancy to an end. Adding to that a further month to have an application determined by the Tribunal, had the landlord taken those reasonable mitigation steps, the tenancy would have been ended with 4 months’ rent owing. The landlord’s claim should be limited to 17 weeks’ rent.
The landlord has provided electricity charge invoices. The tenant should be required to pay those charges up to the invoice for the billing period ending 29 January 2025.
Because Mark Johnson has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5181813 — Rent arrears at 406 Avenue Road West, Hastings, Hastings 4122

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5181813 — Rent arrears at 406 Avenue Road West, Hastings, Hastings 4122

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions