Tenancy Tribunal Dismisses Claim for Additional Rent Due to Failure to Mitigate Losses
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that a landlord cannot claim additional rent if they fail to take reasonable steps to limit their losses. In this case, the landlord's repeated requests for the tenant to clean the property were seen as increasing their own losses.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord must take reasonable steps to limit losses arising from a tenant's breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📖 What the law says
This section outlines a tenant's responsibilities, including paying rent on time, keeping the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and leaving the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition when moving out.
This section states that if one party breaks the tenancy agreement or the Act, the other party must take all reasonable steps to limit any damage or loss that results from that breach. This is in line with general legal principles about reducing losses when a contract is broken.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's request for additional rent was dismissed due to failure to mitigate losses.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a landlord's claim for additional rent from 9 January 2025 to 18 January 2025, ruling that the landlord failed to mitigate their losses by requesting the tenant to return multiple times for cleaning.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5098268 1
[2025] NZTT 5098268
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted] Qian
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: 74 Young Access, Dairy Flat, Dairy Flat 0992
ORDER
1. The application for the additional rent is dismissed.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing.
2. On 17 March 2025 the Tribunal issued an order for rent arrears to 9 January 2025 and refunded the bond.
3. The landlord sought further rent until 18 January 2025, which the tenant disputes, and a further hearing was scheduled to hear evidence on the additional nine days of rent.
Background
4. The tenancy was terminated by the landlord with an end date of 3 January 2025. At the last hearing, the tenants confirmed that an arrangement was made for them to stay at the property until 9 January 2025 to complete cleaning, although the tenants advised they had moved out of the property prior to 9 January 2025.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5098268 2
5. The landlord carried out an exit inspection around that time and requested that the tenant return to the property to carry out further cleaning and removing of rubbish and belongings. The tenant accordingly arranged for a [NAME] to carry out further cleaning to the property and provided evidence from that cleaner.
6. Communications show that despite cleaning, the landlord continued to request that the tenant return to do more cleaning to the property.
7. The landlord seeks rent until 18 January 2025 on the basis that they were unable to rent out the property while the tenant was continuing to return to the property (at the landlord’s request). They say that they did not engage their own cleaner as they did not think they be able to recover the costs from the tenant.
8. The tenant disputes that further cleaning was required at all but were trying to appease the landlord and so did their best to meet the demands. They dispute however, that they are liable for any rent during this period.
The law and conclusion
9. In my view the tenancy had ended by 9 January 2025. The tenant no longer had the right to occupy the premises in consideration for rent.
10. Section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that where a party breaches any of the provisions of the RTA, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach.
11. A tenant is required upon vacating a property to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e) of the RTA.
12. Here, if the tenant did breach section 40(1)(e) of the RTA (and I have not had to consider if they did), the landlord is required to limit their losses arising from that breach.
13. The landlord could have done so by arranging a cleaner and rubbish removal immediately. Landlords often take these steps within a few days of an exit inspection. The landlord’s decision to have or request the tenant to return to the property multiple times and over several weeks increased their losses (through lack of rent). However, those losses stemmed from their decision not to act immediately to remedy the alleged breach.
14. I am not convinced that their concerns around meaningful enforcement limit their obligation to mitigate their losses.
15. I am therefore satisfied that the landlord failed to mitigate their own losses and should not be awarded the additional nine days rent sought.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5098268 3
16. The claim for the additional nine days rent from 9 January 2025 to 18 January 2025 is therefore dismissed.
R Harvey-Lane
26 May 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5098268 4
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5098268 5
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenant had already moved out before the requested additional rent period began.
- The landlord could have mitigated losses by hiring a cleaner immediately after the exit inspection.
- The landlord's repeated requests for the tenant to return for cleaning extended the period of lost rent unnecessarily.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord claimed the tenant needed to return multiple times for further cleaning.
- The landlord argued they were unable to rent out the property due to the tenant's continued presence.
- The landlord suggested they did not hire their own cleaner because they doubted the ability to recover costs from the tenant.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the landlord's claim for additional rent from 9 January 2025 to 18 January 2025.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the landlord was entitled to additional rent after the tenant had left the property.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the landlord was not entitled to additional rent because they failed to mitigate their losses by requesting the tenant to return multiple times for cleaning.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(1)(e) and 49 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the landlord failed to take reasonable steps to limit their losses by repeatedly requesting the tenant to clean the property.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the landlord who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For landlords in a similar situation, it means they need to take reasonable steps to limit their losses if they want to claim additional rent.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence of communications between the landlord and tenant, and the testimony of the cleaner hired by the tenant, mattered in the decision.