Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 4937274 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 2, 17 Hauiti Road, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062 and
Decided 1 Sept 2025 · Published 1 Sept 2025 · Application 4937274
- Exemplary damages
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
R Morgan
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $1,027.00
- Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant
- $1,027.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exemplary damages (failure to comply with an improvement notice | $1,000.00 | Exemplary damages (failure to comply with an improvement notice | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $27.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $1,027.00 | ||
| Total payable by Landlord to Tenant | $1,027.00 |
Claims and awards for application 4937274 — net $1,027.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Order
- Main Real Estate Limited must pay [The tenant/s] Chief [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], and [[The tenant/s] tenant/s] Tenant(s) $1,027.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
Reasons
- Both parties attended [The tenant/s] hearing, and both were represented by Counsel.
- [The tenant/s] Chief [The tenant/s] ([The tenant/s] Chief [The tenant/s]), [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], and Employment (MBIE) has filed a claim against Main Real Estate Ltd as landlord of 12 specific tenancies and in relation to its rental portfolio generally (listed as “Annex A” to [The tenant/s] Chief [The tenant/s]’s Statement of Facts).
- [The tenant/s] application is made by [The tenant/s] Chief [The tenant/s] pursuant to s109(1)(c) of [The tenant/s] Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) as [The tenant/s] person responsible for [The tenant/s] general administration of [The tenant/s] RTA.
- [The tenant/s] Chief [The tenant/s] claims that Main Real Estate Limited committed an unlawful act under s 126J(1) of [The tenant/s] RTA, in that it failed to comply with an improvement notice.
- [The tenant/s] Chief [The tenant/s] seeks an order for exemplary damages not exceeding $3,000. See ss 109 &126J(1) RTA. Procedural Background
- [The tenant/s] parties attended a Case Management Conference by telephone in February 2025. Main Real Estate Ltd was not represented at that time.
- [The tenant/s] purpose of [The tenant/s] Case Management Conference was to understand [The tenant/s] claims and make any directions required prior to a substantive hearing.
- Following [The tenant/s] Case Management Conference, I issued a directions order noting: a. MBIE has applied for exemplary damages. It says that [The tenant/s] Respondent has breached its obligations under s126J(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by failing to comply with an improvement notice issued on 28 August 2024. b. [The tenant/s] details of MBIE’s application are set out in its Statement of Facts document. MBIE has also provided three witness statements, and exhibit list and 131 pages of exhibits. [The tenant/s] Tribunal file records that [The tenant/s] documentation was sent to [The tenant/s] Respondent by Courier on 15 January 2025. c. [The tenant/s] Respondent submitted documents before [The tenant/s] Case Management Conference which suggest that it ei[The tenant/s]r had not read [The tenant/s] full documentation or did not understand [The tenant/s] nature of this claim and [The tenant/s] allegations in it. d. [The tenant/s] Respondent indicated that it wanted to obtain legal advice.
- I [The tenant/s]n directed Main Real Estate Ltd to provide a Response to [The tenant/s] Statement of Facts. That document was to set out brief responses (bullet point) to each of [The tenant/s] numbered paragraphs in [The tenant/s] Statement of Facts.
- After obtaining legal advice Main Real Estate Ltd provided its response to [The tenant/s] statement of facts.
- It accepted all [The tenant/s] facts alleged by [The tenant/s] Chief [The tenant/s], except it said that some of [The tenant/s] Tenancy Agreements were between property owners and [The tenant/s] respective tenants. Main Real Estate Ltd did not specify which of [The tenant/s] agreements it was referring to. Accepted Facts
- It is not necessary to set out [The tenant/s] Statement of Facts (SoF) in full. [The tenant/s] critical agreed facts are as follows: a. Main Real Estate Ltd is a landlord as defined in s2 RTA (para 4 SoF). b. Main Real Estate Ltd rents properties to residential tenants, s4 RTA (para 5 SoF). c. Main Real Estate Ltd entered into residential tenancy agreements with tenants (para 6 SoF). d. [The tenant/s] Tenancy Compliance & Investigations Team (TCIT) of MBIE issued an Improvement Notice under [The tenant/s] RTA because of [The tenant/s] reasonable belief that Main Real Estate Ltd has contravened or is likely to contravene [The tenant/s] RTA (para 8 SoF). e. TCIT undertook a proactive review of Main Real Estate’s [The tenant/s] practices in March 2023. Following that review, MBIE requested certain documentation by 5 April 2023. Main Real Estate provided some of [The tenant/s] requested documentation between 15 and 30 June 2023 (paras 10 to 16 SoF). f. MBIE requested fur[The tenant/s]r information as part of [The tenant/s]ir investigation on 5 July 2023. Some information was provided and MBIE’s investigation was completed on 28 August 2023 (paras 17 to 22 SoF). g. MBIE identified that several clauses within tenancy agreements provided during [The tenant/s] investigation contravened or were likely to contravene [The tenant/s] RTA, in [The tenant/s] following respects (paras 21 & 29 SoF): i. Section 13A(1)(h) – Contents of Tenancy Agreement – No provision to confirm whe[The tenant/s]r [The tenant/s] tenant is under 18. ii. Section 13A(1A) – Contents of Tenancy Agreements – No insulation statement. iii. Section 13A(2) – Contents of Tenancy Agreements – No insurance statement. iv. Section 13A(1CA) – Contents of Tenancy Agreements – No intent to comply with Healthy Homes Standards. v. Section 13A(1CB) – Contents of Tenancy Agreements – No Healthy Homes Compliance Statement. vi. Section 45(1)(bb) – Comply with Healthy Homes Standards. vii. Section 137 – Prohibited Transactions – Adding clauses to Tenancy Agreements which go beyond [The tenant/s] statutory obligations of tenants. h. MBIE issued an Improvement Notice on 28 September 2023. [The tenant/s] date for providing evidence to show compliance with [The tenant/s] Notice was 26 October 2023 (para 22 SoF). i. On 26 October 2023 Main Real Estate had failed to supply evidence to show compliance with [The tenant/s] Improvement Notice (para 23 SoF).
- In addtion to [The tenant/s] agreed facts, I note that [The tenant/s] Improvement Notice clearly sets out [The tenant/s] affected tenancies, [The tenant/s] nature and exent of [The tenant/s] alleged contraventions, recommendations for compliance and [The tenant/s] time period for remedying [The tenant/s] contrvention or providing evidence of compliance. [The tenant/s] Law
- [The tenant/s] relevant provisions of [The tenant/s] RTA are set out below.
- Section 126H provides [The tenant/s] Chief [The tenant/s] with [The tenant/s] ability to issue improvement notices. It states:
- Section 126I sets out [The tenant/s] content required in an improvement notice, as follows:
- Section 126J [The tenant/s]n addresses [The tenant/s] situation of [The tenant/s] party failing to comply with an improvement notice:
- [The tenant/s] RTA also sets out a process upon which a landlord can object to an improvement notice, as follows: Decision
- Notwithstanding [The tenant/s] agreed statement of facts, Main Real Estate Ltd disputed liability. So, I must decide whe[The tenant/s]r exemplary damages can be ordered for a claimed failure to comply with [The tenant/s] improvement notice.
- [The tenant/s] RTA sets out specific provisions that apply for improvement notices, and [The tenant/s]y must be complied with strictly. I am satisfied that [The tenant/s] notice issued on 28 September 2023 did comply with [The tenant/s] requirements for [The tenant/s] notice under section 126I. That provision in broad requires that [The tenant/s] notice set out [The tenant/s] nature of [The tenant/s] breach, but [The tenant/s] notice can set out non-mandatory recommendations to remedy [The tenant/s] breach, which it did.
- It is important to recognise that while recommendations were made in this case, it is not an unlawful act if [The tenant/s] Landlord elected not to follow those recommendations, [The tenant/s] Landlord could take some o[The tenant/s]r course in order to remedy [The tenant/s] breach. So, when I consider this application, I am not considering whe[The tenant/s]r [The tenant/s] Landlord failed to implement [The tenant/s] recommendations, but whe[The tenant/s]r [The tenant/s] Landlord failed to address [The tenant/s] specific breaches (set out at 12g above).
- Main Real Estate Ltd provided sparse evidence in relation to [The tenant/s] issues for determination. It, belatedly, provided a lot of evidence if attempts to comply with [The tenant/s] improvement notice. It argued that some (unspecified) tenancy agreements in its portfolio were between property owners and tenants directly.
- [The tenant/s] statutory scheme anticipates that unless [The tenant/s] landlord files an objection to [The tenant/s] notice within 28 days under section 126M, that [The tenant/s] breaches are deemed to have occurred. In this case [The tenant/s] Landlord has not objected to [The tenant/s] notice, so it is now too late for [The tenant/s] Landlord to attempt to argue that [The tenant/s]re has not been any breach.
- [The tenant/s] tenancy agreement provided by [The tenant/s] Chief [The tenant/s] in evidence were between Main Real Estate and tenants. Where Main Real Estate was acting as agent, it had prepared and signed [The tenant/s] tenancy agreement.
- It is apparent that Main Real Estate Ltd were using an out-of-date template agreement which did not comply with [The tenant/s] current requirements of [The tenant/s] RTA (as set out in 12g above). [The tenant/s] agreements also purported to impose greater obligation on tenants than imposed by [The tenant/s] RTA.
- [The tenant/s] evidence to be provided under [The tenant/s] improvement notice includes; a. Copies of [The tenant/s] tenancy agreements showing [The tenant/s] relevant changes to [The tenant/s] terms including insulation, insurance, healthy homes compliance, and healthy homes intent to comply statements. b. Copies of correspondence sent to affected tenants advising of [The tenant/s] updated terms and [The tenant/s] provision of insulation, insurance, healthy homes compliance, and healthy homes intent to comply statements. c. Evidence of all affected properties meeting [The tenant/s] healthy homes standards (heating, ventilation, draught stopping and moisture ingress and drainage).
- Main Real Estate took no steps to address [[The tenant/s] tenant/s]e issues or to demonstrate compliance by [The tenant/s] date specified in [The tenant/s] improvement notice; by 26 October 2023. Put simply, Main Real Estate Ltd, failed to act on [The tenant/s] Improvement Notice at all by [The tenant/s] due date. That failure to comply with [The tenant/s] improvement notice amounts to an unlawful act under [The tenant/s] RTA.
- I must [The tenant/s]n consider whe[The tenant/s]r to award exemplary damages.
- Exemplary damages are intended to be punitive ra[The tenant/s]r than compensatory. Moreover, [The tenant/s] quantum of any exemplary damages awarded may not exceed [The tenant/s] maximum prescribed in [The tenant/s] Act which in this case amounts to $3,000.
- Based on [The tenant/s] agreed facts, [The tenant/s] Chief [The tenant/s] submitted that [The tenant/s] respondent ought to be made to pay exemplary damages because, in respect of [The tenant/s] factors under s 109(3): a. Intent of [The tenant/s] person committing [The tenant/s] unlawful act — [The tenant/s] respondent acknowledged receipt of [The tenant/s] improvement notice. It was aware of [The tenant/s] contents of [The tenant/s] improvement notice, including [The tenant/s] requirement for [The tenant/s] respondent to provide evidence by [The tenant/s] stated due date. b. Effect of [The tenant/s] unlawful act — [The tenant/s] principal effect of [The tenant/s] respondent’s unlawful act was that [The tenant/s] tenants of [The tenant/s] premises in question were deprived of [The tenant/s] benefit of having insurance statements, insulation statements, healthy homes compliance statements, etc., included in [The tenant/s]ir respective tenancy agreements. [The tenant/s] respondent’s unlawful act also undermined, in a general sense, [The tenant/s] legal obligation of landlords to provide those statements to [The tenant/s] tenants upon commencing [The tenant/s]ir respective tenancies. c. Interest of [The tenant/s] tenants against whom [The tenant/s] unlawful act was committed — [The tenant/s] tenants’ collective interest is [The tenant/s] vindication of [The tenant/s]ir rights under [The tenant/s] Act. d. Public interest — [The tenant/s] public interest requires that [The tenant/s] respondent (and o[The tenant/s]r landlords) be penalised for, and discouraged from, committing breaches of [The tenant/s] Act—particularly in regard to providing essential documentation in tenancy agreements.
- [The tenant/s] applicant submits that [The tenant/s] respondent’s failure to comply with [The tenant/s] improvement notice is moderately serious and affected a significant number of tenancies. [The tenant/s]refore, a starting point in [The tenant/s] midpoint of [The tenant/s] maximum awardable sum may be appropriate, e.g. $1,500. [The tenant/s] Chief [The tenant/s] also acknowledged that Main Real Estate’s belated attempts (in 2025) to demonstrate compliance may justify a small discount.
- Main Real Estate argued that it had been affected by illness of [The tenant/s] director, had been let down by staff and by owners not provided [The tenant/s] correct information. It provided limited evidence in respect of any of those matters.
- Fur[The tenant/s]r, it should know what is required from its owners and require that information before accepting management of each of [The tenant/s] premises. While not clearly articulated, and contrary to [The tenant/s] agreed statement of facts, Main Real Estate Ltd seemed to suggest that it was not a “landlord”. I do not accept that argument, I apply [The tenant/s] agreed statement of facts and (alternatively) adopt [The tenant/s] rationale in [Name suppressed] v Gralin Property Management (Auckland Central) Limited [2024] NZDC 16642 to find that Main Real Estate Ltd is a “landlord”.
- Main Real Estate Ltd were aware of [The tenant/s] improvement notice when it was served. Even at [The tenant/s] time of hearing, some 18 months later, [The tenant/s] Notice still had not been completely complied with.
- I am satisfied that [The tenant/s] Landlord has acted intentionally in failing to comply with [The tenant/s] improvement notice. [The tenant/s] effect of [The tenant/s] unlawful act is that tenants have not had [The tenant/s] benefit of mandatory information regarding [The tenant/s]ir tenancies. [The tenant/s]re are strong interests for tenants to have any defect with [The tenant/s] agreement corrected without delay. [The tenant/s]re is a very strong public interest that landlords comply with improvement notices when [The tenant/s]y are issued, given [The tenant/s] role TCIT have in protecting [The tenant/s] public. See [The tenant/s] Chief [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and Employment v Property Management Wellington Ltd [2023] NZTT 4453805 regarding a property manager’s failure to comply with an improvement notice.
- [The tenant/s] maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A RTA, which for a breach of s126J is $3,000.00. In this case, I have decided an Order of $1,000, or one third of [The tenant/s] maximum. In setting that level, I have taken account of a range of factors: a. Including [The tenant/s] approach [The tenant/s] landlord as taken with TCIT throughout its investigation and following. b. [The tenant/s] lengthy delay in even attempting to demonstrate compliance with [The tenant/s] RTA. c. Health issues experienced by [The tenant/s] director and principal of Main Real Estate.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s10, s109, s109(1), s109(3), s12, s126H, s126I, s126J, s126J(1), s126M, s137, s13A(1), s13A(1A), s13A(1CA), s13A(1CB), s13A(2), s17, s2, s21, s26, s4, s45(1)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Property management
- MAIN REAL ESTATE LIMITED (respondent)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4937274 about?
The tribunal order states: Main Real Estate Limited must pay [The tenant/s] Chief [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s],
How much money was awarded in case 4937274?
Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant
What type of tenancy dispute was case 4937274?
The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4937274?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12330380-Tribunal_Order.pdf.
For landlords & property managers
Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.
Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.