What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5362185?

The tribunal order states: Melissa Anne Naldrett-Jays must pay Scott McEwan and Fiona Rita Ferguson

How much money was awarded in case 5362185?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,158.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5362185?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5362185?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13124645-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5362185?

The tribunal order states: Melissa Anne Naldrett-Jays must pay Scott McEwan and Fiona Rita Ferguson

How much money was awarded in case 5362185?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,158.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5362185?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5362185?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13124645-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

22 Manuka Street, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5362185 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5362185 — net $1,958.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,158.00		Rent arrears
Rubbish removal	$250.00		nature and to be the responsibility of the tenant. The tenant is ordered to pay $250.00 in compensation for rubbish costs.
Insurance excess on repairs	$550.00		Insurance excess on repairs
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$600.00	Failure to lodge bond
Total award	$4,958.00	$600.00
Net award	$1,958.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,958.00

Order

Melissa Anne Naldrett-Jays must pay Scott McEwan and Fiona Rita Ferguson $1,958.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 17 February 2026.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for exemplary damages for the landlords’ failure to lodge the bond, breach of her quiet enjoyment, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The law
The relevant law applying to this matter is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant (in this case the landlord for the claims by the landlord and the tenant for the claims by the tenant), establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely than not. This obligation carried by the tenant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke (DC) TT 233/02, in practical terms this means that; “Like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the tribunal to extract evidence.”
The parties provided extensive documentation to the Tribunal. Not all of that evidence is referred to in this decision; however, the parties are assured that all evidence has been considered. Exemplary Damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal held; “Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of the conduct.”
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. Before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must take into account the following factors set out in s.109 RTA; A. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act. B. The effect of the unlawful act. C. The interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. D. The public interest. E. Whether it is just to make an award.
Intention is proved where the party turns their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately sets out to commit the act. It is unnecessary to prove that the party intended to act unlawfully, it is enough that they intended to commit the act which is in fact unlawful. The same principle applies where the party fails to carry out a legal requirement. Even if the party is unaware of the particular obligation they have failed to perform, confusion, lack of knowledge or ignorance of the law is no defence.
A party is deemed to know the law, and therefore failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional. Also, if the party is wilfully blind to the factual circumstances that give rise to an unlawful act, this may also be sufficient to prove they acted intentionally.
Exemplary damages must be ordered on a global basis, rather than for each and every separate breach under the same provision of the RTA. (see MBIE v Hills Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583). This is of particular relevance in this case where the tenant refers to multiple breaches by the landlord. The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered are set out in Schedule 1A RTA.
The Tribunal’s usual approach to exemplary damages is to award one-third of the maximum available unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors to be considered (Wellington Property Management Limited v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281.
I record that even if the Tribunal finds an act to be an unlawful act, but decides not to award exemplary damages, the District Court has found that it can still award compensation for the breach (Cavanagh v Kainga Ora [NZDC] 7033).
Section 109(2)(b) RTA provides that a tenant may not apply for an award of exemplary damages more than 12 months after the commission of the unlawful act. This limit may not apply where the breach is of an ongoing nature.
The tenancy commenced on 28 October 2019 and ended on 7 September 2025. The parties agreed that their relationship for most of the tenancy was particularly good but that this deteriorated towards the end of the tenancy. Landlords’ claims

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 7 September 2025. The landlord provided rent records which show the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $4,158.00
The tenant accepted that she had only missed three rent payments during the course of the tenancy, but did not provide any documentary evidence to support that proposition.
The landlords’ rent summary is a detailed record from the commencement of the tenancy. I prefer the evidence of the landlord that it is more likely than not that the amount outstanding for rent is $4,158.00 The tenant is ordered to pay that sum to the landlord.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided photos of the rubbish and the invoice for the rubbish skip hire of $510.00.
The tenant did not accept that the rubbish was hers. She said that some of the rubbish had been present at the commencement of the tenancy and some had been left behind by the landlords’ painter. Having reviewed the evidence and the photos, I accept that it is more likely than not that some of the rubbish was not the responsibility of the tenant. Some however, seems to be more “recent “in nature and to be the responsibility of the tenant. The tenant is ordered to pay $250.00 in compensation for rubbish costs.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. The landlord is insured. The landlords’ policy of insurance carries an excess of $550.00.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: The downpipes, weatherboards and soffits were damaged as a result of the tenant’s son hitting them with a car. The tenant is liable for the acts of her son. The actual repair costs were $1,249.99. The landlord seeks compensation for the insurance excess of $550.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The security alarm was damaged beyond repair. The landlord claims the insurance excess of $550.00.
The alarm system was at least 10 years old.
The tenant says that the alarm was not operative at the commencement of the tenancy and that she had never touched during the tenancy.
Limited evidence has been provided. I am not persuaded that it is more likely than not that the damage occurred during the tenancy. When the age of the alarm is taken into account, depreciation would have rendered the system of no actual value. The claim is dismissed.
The amounts ordered are proved. Tenant’s claims
The tenant claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord admits having failed to lodge the bond and says that they were naive. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlords are deemed to be aware of their responsibilities with regards to the bond. It is in the best interests of this tenant and tenants generally to have bond money held by an independent entity. I consider the retention of the bond by the landlords through until the hearing to be an aggravating factor. The landlords are ordered to pay exemplary damages of $600.00.
The tenant claims that the landlords have breached her quiet enjoyment of the premises.
Section 38 RTA provides that the tenant shall be entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises and that where a breach of that entitlement by the landlord amounts to harassment, the tenant is entitled to an award of exemplary damages to a maximum of $3,000.00.
The tenant says that towards the end of the tenancy the landlord increased their inspections to every four weeks. The landlords were entitled under the RTA to inspect the premises that often.
The tenant said that she felt stressed as a result of the landlord passing onto her, complaints that they had received about noise and behaviour from neighbours. The tenant said that she was experiencing difficult personal circumstances which made the landlord’s actions even more distressing for her.
I consider that the landlord’s actions (even as explained by the tenant) have not been in breach of any obligation under the RTA. There has been no continuing course of action designed to harass the tenant. The application for exemplary damages by the tenant is dismissed.
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and I make no order for reimbursement of her filing fee.
I record that neither party sought name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5362185 — net $1,958.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,158.00		Rent arrears
Rubbish removal	$250.00		nature and to be the responsibility of the tenant. The tenant is ordered to pay $250.00 in compensation for rubbish costs.
Insurance excess on repairs	$550.00		Insurance excess on repairs
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond		$600.00	Failure to lodge bond
Total award	$4,958.00	$600.00
Net award	$1,958.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,958.00

Order

Melissa Anne Naldrett-Jays must pay Scott McEwan and Fiona Rita Ferguson $1,958.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 17 February 2026.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for exemplary damages for the landlords’ failure to lodge the bond, breach of her quiet enjoyment, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The law
The relevant law applying to this matter is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant (in this case the landlord for the claims by the landlord and the tenant for the claims by the tenant), establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely than not. This obligation carried by the tenant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke (DC) TT 233/02, in practical terms this means that; “Like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the tribunal to extract evidence.”
The parties provided extensive documentation to the Tribunal. Not all of that evidence is referred to in this decision; however, the parties are assured that all evidence has been considered. Exemplary Damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal held; “Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of the conduct.”
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. Before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must take into account the following factors set out in s.109 RTA; A. The intent of the person in committing the unlawful act. B. The effect of the unlawful act. C. The interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. D. The public interest. E. Whether it is just to make an award.
Intention is proved where the party turns their mind to the unlawful act and deliberately sets out to commit the act. It is unnecessary to prove that the party intended to act unlawfully, it is enough that they intended to commit the act which is in fact unlawful. The same principle applies where the party fails to carry out a legal requirement. Even if the party is unaware of the particular obligation they have failed to perform, confusion, lack of knowledge or ignorance of the law is no defence.
A party is deemed to know the law, and therefore failure to perform the obligation is considered intentional. Also, if the party is wilfully blind to the factual circumstances that give rise to an unlawful act, this may also be sufficient to prove they acted intentionally.
Exemplary damages must be ordered on a global basis, rather than for each and every separate breach under the same provision of the RTA. (see MBIE v Hills Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583). This is of particular relevance in this case where the tenant refers to multiple breaches by the landlord. The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered are set out in Schedule 1A RTA.
The Tribunal’s usual approach to exemplary damages is to award one-third of the maximum available unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors to be considered (Wellington Property Management Limited v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281.
I record that even if the Tribunal finds an act to be an unlawful act, but decides not to award exemplary damages, the District Court has found that it can still award compensation for the breach (Cavanagh v Kainga Ora [NZDC] 7033).
Section 109(2)(b) RTA provides that a tenant may not apply for an award of exemplary damages more than 12 months after the commission of the unlawful act. This limit may not apply where the breach is of an ongoing nature.
The tenancy commenced on 28 October 2019 and ended on 7 September 2025. The parties agreed that their relationship for most of the tenancy was particularly good but that this deteriorated towards the end of the tenancy. Landlords’ claims

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 7 September 2025. The landlord provided rent records which show the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $4,158.00
The tenant accepted that she had only missed three rent payments during the course of the tenancy, but did not provide any documentary evidence to support that proposition.
The landlords’ rent summary is a detailed record from the commencement of the tenancy. I prefer the evidence of the landlord that it is more likely than not that the amount outstanding for rent is $4,158.00 The tenant is ordered to pay that sum to the landlord.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided photos of the rubbish and the invoice for the rubbish skip hire of $510.00.
The tenant did not accept that the rubbish was hers. She said that some of the rubbish had been present at the commencement of the tenancy and some had been left behind by the landlords’ painter. Having reviewed the evidence and the photos, I accept that it is more likely than not that some of the rubbish was not the responsibility of the tenant. Some however, seems to be more “recent “in nature and to be the responsibility of the tenant. The tenant is ordered to pay $250.00 in compensation for rubbish costs.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. The landlord is insured. The landlords’ policy of insurance carries an excess of $550.00.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: The downpipes, weatherboards and soffits were damaged as a result of the tenant’s son hitting them with a car. The tenant is liable for the acts of her son. The actual repair costs were $1,249.99. The landlord seeks compensation for the insurance excess of $550.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The security alarm was damaged beyond repair. The landlord claims the insurance excess of $550.00.
The alarm system was at least 10 years old.
The tenant says that the alarm was not operative at the commencement of the tenancy and that she had never touched during the tenancy.
Limited evidence has been provided. I am not persuaded that it is more likely than not that the damage occurred during the tenancy. When the age of the alarm is taken into account, depreciation would have rendered the system of no actual value. The claim is dismissed.
The amounts ordered are proved. Tenant’s claims
The tenant claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord admits having failed to lodge the bond and says that they were naive. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The landlords are deemed to be aware of their responsibilities with regards to the bond. It is in the best interests of this tenant and tenants generally to have bond money held by an independent entity. I consider the retention of the bond by the landlords through until the hearing to be an aggravating factor. The landlords are ordered to pay exemplary damages of $600.00.
The tenant claims that the landlords have breached her quiet enjoyment of the premises.
Section 38 RTA provides that the tenant shall be entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises and that where a breach of that entitlement by the landlord amounts to harassment, the tenant is entitled to an award of exemplary damages to a maximum of $3,000.00.
The tenant says that towards the end of the tenancy the landlord increased their inspections to every four weeks. The landlords were entitled under the RTA to inspect the premises that often.
The tenant said that she felt stressed as a result of the landlord passing onto her, complaints that they had received about noise and behaviour from neighbours. The tenant said that she was experiencing difficult personal circumstances which made the landlord’s actions even more distressing for her.
I consider that the landlord’s actions (even as explained by the tenant) have not been in breach of any obligation under the RTA. There has been no continuing course of action designed to harass the tenant. The application for exemplary damages by the tenant is dismissed.
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and I make no order for reimbursement of her filing fee.
I record that neither party sought name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5362185 — Rent arrears at 22 Manuka Street, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5362185 — Rent arrears at 22 Manuka Street, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions