Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5298606 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1303, 9 Byron Avenue, Takapuna, Auckland 0622,
Decided 19 Aug 2025 · Published 19 Aug 2025 · Application 5298606
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
Order
- The tenant Hyun Il Kim owes the landlord City Sales Limited As Agent For Weihong Mo $2,342.65 the sum of $2,370.65 (“the debt”), comprising rent arrears up to 15 August 2025, unpaid utility charges, and reimbursement of the landlord’s Tribunal filing fee, as outlined below:
- The tenant must repay the debt in weekly instalments of $50.00, in addition to his regular weekly rent of $460.00, until the debt is fully paid.
- If the tenant fails to pay the rent and/or debt within two working days of the due date, the entire remaining balance of the debt will become immediately payable in full.
Reasons
The landlord’s application Description of the debtLandlordTenant Rent arrears to 15 August 2025$1,550.00 Utilities bill for outstanding water & power Reimbursement of Tribunal filing fee $792.65 $28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,370.65
- Both parties were present at the hearing.
- The landlord applied for recovery of rent arrears, outstanding utilities charges, and reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee associated with making this application.
How much does the tenant owe?
- The landlord submitted rent records confirming the arrears. These were not disputed by the tenant and are accepted.
- The landlord also submitted invoices for unpaid water and electricity charges. The tenant questioned the accuracy of the amounts, noting he had been the sole occupant of the premises with limited usage. However, for the purpose of resolving this application, the tenant agreed to accept the amounts as claimed. The parties also agreed to address any future concerns regarding utility charges directly between themselves.
- Accordingly, the Tribunal accepts the amounts for rent and utilities as sought by the landlord and agreed by the tenant.
What payment arrangements for the debt ought to be ordered?
- The tenant, in openly explaining his financial situation, proposed to repay the debt by making weekly payments of $50.00, in addition to his regular rent payments of $460.00 per week. At this rate, the debt would be repaid over approximately 47 weeks. The tenant expressed hope that his circumstances may improve, allowing for earlier repayment, but confirmed that he is not currently able to commit to higher repayments. He also acknowledged and regretted the impact of the arrears on the landlord.
- The landlord did not dispute the tenant’s explanation of his current financial position, which may not have been fully known prior to the hearing. However, the landlord highlighted the significant financial strain on the property owner due to ongoing arrears and previous repayment plans that were not honoured – matters the tenant acknowledged. The landlord sought repayment within one month, which the tenant was unable to agree to.
- Notably, the landlord did not seek a final or conditional termination of the tenancy, despite being entitled to do so. Presumably, this is because there is a clear and practical benefit in allowing the tenancy to continue while attempting to recover the debt, particularly where maintaining rental income may help mitigate the financial impact of the arrears to date.
- While the Tribunal acknowledges the landlord’s financial hardship, it would not be constructive to order repayment terms that exceed the tenant’s capacity to pay. Doing so would likely result in further enforcement actions, increasing time, cost, and stress for both parties, and reduce the likelihood of recovery.
- Given the landlord’s decision to pursue repayment before considering termination – and the absence of evidence indicating the tenant could afford to pay more – the Tribunal considers the proposed repayment plan to be a reasonable and pragmatic approach. This does not minimise or dismiss the landlord’s losses, but rather reflects a realistic assessment of what is achievable in the current circumstances and best serves the interests of both parties. Should the landlord’s filing fee be reimbursed?
- As City Sales Limited As Agent For Weihong Mo substantially succeeded in its claim, the Tribunal orders reimbursement of the filing fee.