What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5396928?

The tribunal order states: Kaley Lynne Meyler-Cain must pay Podgora Limited $78.57 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5396928?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $578.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5396928?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5396928?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13660912-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5396928?

The tribunal order states: Kaley Lynne Meyler-Cain must pay Podgora Limited $78.57 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5396928?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $578.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5396928?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5396928?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13660912-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

257A Te Moana Road, Waikanae, Waikanae 5036 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5396928 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5396928 — net $78.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 November 2025	$578.57		Rent arrears to 2 November 2025
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge the bond		$500.00	Failure to lodge the bond
Total award	$578.57	$500.00
Net award	$78.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$78.57

Order

Kaley Lynne Meyler-Cain must pay Podgora Limited $78.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. A. The Tenant’s claims a. Mosquitos

The tenant has claimed compensation the landlord failed to clear the grass from the ‘swamp’ and this caused her and her family to be bitten by mosquitos.
The landlord stated that the area is not a swamp. It is a pond that the Kapiti Council designated as a water runoff area for high rainfall. He said the tenant wanted the area filled in for a carpark, but the Council conditions for the land would not permit that.
The landlord submitted that he told the tenant at the start of the tenancy that there are fish in the pond that eat any mosquito lava. The landlord agreed that he told the tenant he would remove the grass but added that he told the tenant it would be removed in summer. He said that the grass was removed in summer, but the tenant’s tenancy had been terminated for rent arrears before summer.
There is insufficient evidence to prove, (i) when the grass would be removed, (ii) whether mosquitos came from the pond, (iii) whether there are fish in the pond, and (iv) whether the removal of the grass from the pond would change the presence or absence of mosquito lava.
The claim for compensation is dismissed because the claim has not been proved. b. Cleaning required at the commencement of the tenancy
The tenant claimed compensation for her time doing cleaning at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord did not dispute that the cleaner sent to clean the property prior to the tenancy had not cleaned mould from the window frames. Both parties agreed that landlord offered to send the cleaner back to carry out the window frame cleaning, but the tenant declined, stating that she preferred to do the cleaning herself.
The landlord has not breached his cleaning obligation. The landlord agreed to remedy the cleaning, but the tenant declined the landlord’s offer.
The claim for compensation is dismissed because the landlord did not breach an obligation to rectify cleaning the window frames. c. Floor and bench coating peeling
The tenant has claimed compensation for damage to her youngster’s health. She submitted that the floor and bench coatings were peeling and the child was eating it and getting sick. She did not provide medical records in support of her claim.
The landlord submitted that before the tenancy began, he informed the tenant that the floors had been sanded and varnished 6 years before and there had been delamination in one small area shortly after. The delamination did not occur during the tenancy. He said that during the tenancy the tenant did not raise with him that the floor or bench was a problem for her. He said that the tenant used rugs left at the property to cover the small area that had delaminated.
Tenants are required to inform landlords of remedial work the is required. If these areas were a problem for the tenant, she needed to advise the landlord. There is insufficient evidence to show that the tenant was concerned about the condition of the floor or bench during the tenancy or that her child’s health was affected by the condition of the premises.
The claim for compensation is dismissed because the claim has not been proved. d. The landlord did not build a satisfactory fence and gate.
The tenant requested a fence and gate be built within the property. She claims compensation because it was unsatisfactory. She said she had to secure the gate with ties and the palings were horizontal, not vertical.
The landlord built the fence to the same design as other fences in the property. The landlord said that the tenant was happy with the fence and gate during the tenancy. She did not complain except in her application.
There is no evidence to show that the tenant was concerned about the work carried out by the landlord. If she had contacted the landlord about fence concerns raised in her application, some simple adjustments could have been made.
There is insufficient evidence to show that the tenant was concerned about the design of the fence and gate during the tenancy.
The claim for compensation is dismissed because the claim has not been proved. e. The landlord did not lodge the filing fee
The tenant claims that the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time. She has requested the Tribunal to order the landlord to pay exemplary damages for an unlawful act.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy began on 27 July 2025 but the bond was not lodged until 12 September 2025. The landlord incorrectly gave a tenancy commencement date of 26 August when lodging the bond. 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not lodge the bond because he wanted to use the money to cover the tenant’s rent arrears. It was therefore an intentional act. The tenant did not suffer any loss as a result of the landlord’s unlawful act. The full bond was available to apply against her rent arrears of $7,067.29 when her tenancy was terminated by the Tribunal on 25 November 2025. The landlord did not benefit by delaying the bond lodgement. He did not use the bond to pay the outgoings on the property. It is in the public interest that landlords lodge bonds as required by law. The bond is the tenant’s money. Renting becomes riskier if landlords hold bond money rather than lodge the bond in the Bond Centre.
I am satisfied that exemplary damages should be ordered. The amount of $500.00 is ordered. The $500.00 ordered is based on there being no other case known to me where the landlord committed the same unlawful act. The breach did not lead to serious consequences for the tenant. The bond was lodged long before the tenant’s claim. The maximum is reserved for the most serious cases. f. The tenant has claimed compensation for the landlord’s unlawful entry and rent reminders.
The tenant submitted that the landlord entered the property at 8am, knocked on the door and used a loud voice regarding her rent arrears. He left a note on her car that others might see.
The landlord submitted that the tenant had two email addresses but would not reply to his rent arrears requests that he sent to her email addresses. He said he visited the property on his way to work on two occasions. Her partner opened the door but there was no progress made regarding the visits. The landlord disputed that he used a loud voice.
The landlord is permitted to visit the property and knock on the door of the premises without notice. See section 48(7) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The parties’ accounts of the two visits are not supported by any other evidence. This is a case of he said she said.
It was reasonable for the landlord to visit the premises when the tenant failed to answer emails about her rent arrears. If she had responded appropriately, it would not have been necessary for the landlord to visit and leave a notice about her arrears if she had responded..
There is insufficient evidence to show that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by his visit to the property.
The claim for compensation is dismissed because the claim has not been proved. g. The tenant has claimed compensation because of the tenant’s behaviour in the adjoining property.
The tenant has not proved that she raised any concern with the landlord about the neighbour during the tenancy. The landlord stated that he became aware of this claim through her application, lodged the day before the tenancy was ended by the Tribunal. The landlord stated that the other tenant raised concerns about the applicant and her partner.
There is insufficient evidence to prove that the tenant raised a concern that the landlord failed to act on.
The claim for compensation is dismissed because the claim has not been proved. Name Suppression
The tenant has applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Apart from the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond, no other claim made by the tenant has been successful. The tenant has not substantially succeeded with the claim and therefore name suppression is not granted. B. The Landlord’s claims a. Rent arrears
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing to the date when the keys were made available by the tenant. The tenant did not vacate the premises on the date required by the Tribunal. She stayed for six days after the date in the Tribunal order. The claim for rent arrears is proved. b. Losses and stress relating to the tenant’s failure to pay rent
The landlord has claimed compensation for financial losses caused by the tenant’s failure to pay rent on time and for the time payments of $50.00 per week for a large debt.
The landlord did not provide any financial information to the Tribunal to prove a claim for financial loss.
The landlord has claimed compensation for stress caused by the tenant’s failure to pay rent. There are no provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 for a landlord to receive compensation from a tenant where a tenant is in arrears.
It is very rare for compensation for stress, distress or emotional harm to be granted because it is difficult to objectively quantify such harm in monetary terms and the extent of intangible harm is difficult to prove. If measured, any award is open to criticism on the basis that the outcome is unpredictable, or contains a punitive element not permitted in calculating loss for breach of contract.
Apart from these practical issues, there is a more fundamental policy concern against such awards. Contracts often give rise to stress, particularly where personal, social or family interests are affected. This is a risk borne by those who transact, and, if recognised, would add a layer of uncertainty and subjectivity to every claim. Claims for distress on its own are therefore generally unsuccessful.
The landlord is operating a business and can expect that there will be ups and downs and times of stress associated with the risk of renting.
It is not disputed that the tenant’s conduct would have created stress however no order is made for compensation.
I have considered all the landlord’s claims and do not find any reason to make an order except for the rent owed. Filing fees
Because both parties have been partly successful with their claims, neither party is ordered to pay the filing fee to the other party.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5396928 — net $78.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 November 2025	$578.57		Rent arrears to 2 November 2025
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge the bond		$500.00	Failure to lodge the bond
Total award	$578.57	$500.00
Net award	$78.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$78.57

Order

Kaley Lynne Meyler-Cain must pay Podgora Limited $78.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. A. The Tenant’s claims a. Mosquitos

The tenant has claimed compensation the landlord failed to clear the grass from the ‘swamp’ and this caused her and her family to be bitten by mosquitos.
The landlord stated that the area is not a swamp. It is a pond that the Kapiti Council designated as a water runoff area for high rainfall. He said the tenant wanted the area filled in for a carpark, but the Council conditions for the land would not permit that.
The landlord submitted that he told the tenant at the start of the tenancy that there are fish in the pond that eat any mosquito lava. The landlord agreed that he told the tenant he would remove the grass but added that he told the tenant it would be removed in summer. He said that the grass was removed in summer, but the tenant’s tenancy had been terminated for rent arrears before summer.
There is insufficient evidence to prove, (i) when the grass would be removed, (ii) whether mosquitos came from the pond, (iii) whether there are fish in the pond, and (iv) whether the removal of the grass from the pond would change the presence or absence of mosquito lava.
The claim for compensation is dismissed because the claim has not been proved. b. Cleaning required at the commencement of the tenancy
The tenant claimed compensation for her time doing cleaning at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord did not dispute that the cleaner sent to clean the property prior to the tenancy had not cleaned mould from the window frames. Both parties agreed that landlord offered to send the cleaner back to carry out the window frame cleaning, but the tenant declined, stating that she preferred to do the cleaning herself.
The landlord has not breached his cleaning obligation. The landlord agreed to remedy the cleaning, but the tenant declined the landlord’s offer.
The claim for compensation is dismissed because the landlord did not breach an obligation to rectify cleaning the window frames. c. Floor and bench coating peeling
The tenant has claimed compensation for damage to her youngster’s health. She submitted that the floor and bench coatings were peeling and the child was eating it and getting sick. She did not provide medical records in support of her claim.
The landlord submitted that before the tenancy began, he informed the tenant that the floors had been sanded and varnished 6 years before and there had been delamination in one small area shortly after. The delamination did not occur during the tenancy. He said that during the tenancy the tenant did not raise with him that the floor or bench was a problem for her. He said that the tenant used rugs left at the property to cover the small area that had delaminated.
Tenants are required to inform landlords of remedial work the is required. If these areas were a problem for the tenant, she needed to advise the landlord. There is insufficient evidence to show that the tenant was concerned about the condition of the floor or bench during the tenancy or that her child’s health was affected by the condition of the premises.
The claim for compensation is dismissed because the claim has not been proved. d. The landlord did not build a satisfactory fence and gate.
The tenant requested a fence and gate be built within the property. She claims compensation because it was unsatisfactory. She said she had to secure the gate with ties and the palings were horizontal, not vertical.
The landlord built the fence to the same design as other fences in the property. The landlord said that the tenant was happy with the fence and gate during the tenancy. She did not complain except in her application.
There is no evidence to show that the tenant was concerned about the work carried out by the landlord. If she had contacted the landlord about fence concerns raised in her application, some simple adjustments could have been made.
There is insufficient evidence to show that the tenant was concerned about the design of the fence and gate during the tenancy.
The claim for compensation is dismissed because the claim has not been proved. e. The landlord did not lodge the filing fee
The tenant claims that the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time. She has requested the Tribunal to order the landlord to pay exemplary damages for an unlawful act.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy began on 27 July 2025 but the bond was not lodged until 12 September 2025. The landlord incorrectly gave a tenancy commencement date of 26 August when lodging the bond. 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not lodge the bond because he wanted to use the money to cover the tenant’s rent arrears. It was therefore an intentional act. The tenant did not suffer any loss as a result of the landlord’s unlawful act. The full bond was available to apply against her rent arrears of $7,067.29 when her tenancy was terminated by the Tribunal on 25 November 2025. The landlord did not benefit by delaying the bond lodgement. He did not use the bond to pay the outgoings on the property. It is in the public interest that landlords lodge bonds as required by law. The bond is the tenant’s money. Renting becomes riskier if landlords hold bond money rather than lodge the bond in the Bond Centre.
I am satisfied that exemplary damages should be ordered. The amount of $500.00 is ordered. The $500.00 ordered is based on there being no other case known to me where the landlord committed the same unlawful act. The breach did not lead to serious consequences for the tenant. The bond was lodged long before the tenant’s claim. The maximum is reserved for the most serious cases. f. The tenant has claimed compensation for the landlord’s unlawful entry and rent reminders.
The tenant submitted that the landlord entered the property at 8am, knocked on the door and used a loud voice regarding her rent arrears. He left a note on her car that others might see.
The landlord submitted that the tenant had two email addresses but would not reply to his rent arrears requests that he sent to her email addresses. He said he visited the property on his way to work on two occasions. Her partner opened the door but there was no progress made regarding the visits. The landlord disputed that he used a loud voice.
The landlord is permitted to visit the property and knock on the door of the premises without notice. See section 48(7) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The parties’ accounts of the two visits are not supported by any other evidence. This is a case of he said she said.
It was reasonable for the landlord to visit the premises when the tenant failed to answer emails about her rent arrears. If she had responded appropriately, it would not have been necessary for the landlord to visit and leave a notice about her arrears if she had responded..
There is insufficient evidence to show that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by his visit to the property.
The claim for compensation is dismissed because the claim has not been proved. g. The tenant has claimed compensation because of the tenant’s behaviour in the adjoining property.
The tenant has not proved that she raised any concern with the landlord about the neighbour during the tenancy. The landlord stated that he became aware of this claim through her application, lodged the day before the tenancy was ended by the Tribunal. The landlord stated that the other tenant raised concerns about the applicant and her partner.
There is insufficient evidence to prove that the tenant raised a concern that the landlord failed to act on.
The claim for compensation is dismissed because the claim has not been proved. Name Suppression
The tenant has applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Apart from the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond, no other claim made by the tenant has been successful. The tenant has not substantially succeeded with the claim and therefore name suppression is not granted. B. The Landlord’s claims a. Rent arrears
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing to the date when the keys were made available by the tenant. The tenant did not vacate the premises on the date required by the Tribunal. She stayed for six days after the date in the Tribunal order. The claim for rent arrears is proved. b. Losses and stress relating to the tenant’s failure to pay rent
The landlord has claimed compensation for financial losses caused by the tenant’s failure to pay rent on time and for the time payments of $50.00 per week for a large debt.
The landlord did not provide any financial information to the Tribunal to prove a claim for financial loss.
The landlord has claimed compensation for stress caused by the tenant’s failure to pay rent. There are no provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 for a landlord to receive compensation from a tenant where a tenant is in arrears.
It is very rare for compensation for stress, distress or emotional harm to be granted because it is difficult to objectively quantify such harm in monetary terms and the extent of intangible harm is difficult to prove. If measured, any award is open to criticism on the basis that the outcome is unpredictable, or contains a punitive element not permitted in calculating loss for breach of contract.
Apart from these practical issues, there is a more fundamental policy concern against such awards. Contracts often give rise to stress, particularly where personal, social or family interests are affected. This is a risk borne by those who transact, and, if recognised, would add a layer of uncertainty and subjectivity to every claim. Claims for distress on its own are therefore generally unsuccessful.
The landlord is operating a business and can expect that there will be ups and downs and times of stress associated with the risk of renting.
It is not disputed that the tenant’s conduct would have created stress however no order is made for compensation.
I have considered all the landlord’s claims and do not find any reason to make an order except for the rent owed. Filing fees
Because both parties have been partly successful with their claims, neither party is ordered to pay the filing fee to the other party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5396928 — Rent arrears at 257A Te Moana Road, Waikanae, Waikanae 5036

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5396928 — Rent arrears at 257A Te Moana Road, Waikanae, Waikanae 5036

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions