Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5239712 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 3, 39 Kaimanawa Street, Taupo, Taupo 3330
Decided 19 Jan 2026 · Published 19 Jan 2026 · Application 5239712
- Exemplary damages
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
- The interim orders issued in relation to these claims are confirmed as final.
- Jaiju Devassy, Lihdin Loju and Jay Holding LimitedJaiju Devassy, Lihdin Loju, Jay Holding Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $8,700.00 immediately.
Reasons
- Only the tenant attended the hearing today. No landlord representative appeared. Previous Tribunal Orders
- On 12 May 2024 the Tribunal issued an interim order declaring that the tenancy was a Residential and not Boarding House tenancy and that it was not a social housing and therefore excluded tenancy under the RTA, and directing the landlord to pay $3,071.43 compensation.
- The order confirmed the rent arrears owing to the landlord to 16/4/2025 when the landlord had unlawfully ended the tenancy and changed the locks, and that the landlord was to reinstate the tenancy from 23/5/2025 and pay $6,500 exemplary and compensatory damages for various breaches of the RTA.
- The landlord then paid the tenant $3,500 ($428.57 in excess of the Tribunal order) and the parties then also signed a settlement agreement that purported to be in full and final settlement of all issues that had arisen at the tenancy and included a statement that the tenancy was in fact a social housing tenancy and therefore excluded from the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
- After a further jurisdiction hearing the Tribunal set the settlement agreement aside and noted that the issue of whether the tenancy was excluded as a social housing tenancy would be considered further in light of the landlord’s submission that the jurisdiction finding was incorrect.
- The Landlord requested that the Tribunal appoint an interpreter to assist the landlord representatives (noting that the concession the landlord made at the first hearing could not be relied upon as the landlord required interpreter assistance and did not fully understand the submission made).
- The lawyer acting for the landlord said he had also issued requests for a witness summons and further information from WINZ to be provided to establish that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to finalise the interim order or issue final orders as the tenancy was excluded as a social housing tenancy.
- A hearing was set to consider jurisdiction issues on 5 December 2025. The lawyer authorised to act, advised shortly before the commencement of the hearing, that he no longer had instructions to act for the landlord and was therefore withdrawing from representing the landlord.
- The landlord failed to attend the 5 December 2025 hearing. The tenant appeared.
- As the Tribunal had previously directed that the December hearing would consider only jurisdiction issues, the substantive issues were adjourned.
- The jurisdiction and other findings issued in the interim order of 12 May 2025 are therefore confirmed and that order is finalised in every respect.
- The tenancy is a residential and not boarding house tenancy and is not excluded either as a social housing or temporary accommodation only tenancy.
- The tenant confirmed that the remaining substantive issues she wishes to have resolved are a refund of her bond and exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to provide and maintain the premises in an adequate state of repair and comply with the Healthy Homes standards. She was unable to provide any further evidence to support her allegation that the landlord unlawfully seized and disposed of her goods, noting that the Taupo Police had been unable to provide her with video footage that she considers would support her submission. The previous finding that the landlord unlawfully ended the tenancy and changed the locks is confirmed and the claim for unlawful seizure of goods dismissed for want of evidence. Events since tenancy resumed
- The tenant said that when she moved back into the premises in May 2025, she was provided with a key to the front door, but the back door was not secure and broken window latches had not been fixed. The landlord had turned the power off when she left, and the rotting food meant there was an odour that could not be removed with cleaning. There was no complaint smoke alarms installed and while the landlord said this would be done, it was not. She also had issues with pests and rubbish and decided it was not a healthy option to stay living there. It was also becoming apparent that most units at the complex had been boarded up and the landlord was essentially shutting the motel down.
- That is why she accepted the landlord’s settlement offer and moved out that day. She did not pay rent after the tenancy resumed.
- The tenant said she could not provide any further evidence to support her claim that the landlord had unlawfully entered and stolen items from her unit. The Police had been unable to assist her with video footage. Other criminal proceedings are yet to be resolved.
- I have therefore considered the balance of the tenant’s claims that remain outstanding as discussed, and the following findings are made. Failure to maintain premises and comply with Healthy Homes Regulations
- [The tenant/s]’s central claim it that the landlord has breached it’s obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 from the beginning of the tenancy.
- The application form specifically notes issues with the locks, draughts, blocked plumbing, mould, rubbish, heating, pests and smoke alarms.
- Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety
- Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- At the conclusion of the first hearing and at the tenant’s request, the Tribunal issued a document summons requiring the compliance unit at MBIE to provide any documents in its possession likely to assist the Tribunal with its consideration of this issue.
- The evidence provided by MBIE compliance supports a conclusion that the premises have not complied with the Healthy Homes Regulations in a number of respects, in particular the is not compliant with the heating, ventilation and draught stopping Regulations.
- On 18 March 2025 MBIE issued an “improvement notice” after an extensive investigation had been carried out that confirmed the unit required considerable work to ensure it was compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards and the Housing Improvement Regulations.
- The notice of improvement applied to all units at the motel complex and the tenant has provided written statements from several other occupants confirming they too had requested maintenance and compliance because of significant and similar issues at their units.
- The landlord was required to provide MBIE with evidence of compliance by 18 June 2025 and failed to do so. A re-inspection completed on 15 August 2025 confirmed that the required work had not been completed and the property remained non complaint with respect to heating, ventilation, draught stopping and smoke alarm standards.
- Photographs and evidence provided by the tenant confirm that in addition to the healthy homes standard breaches the landlord also failed to ensure that rubbish was removed, plumbing maintained, and locks and windows adequately maintained to ensure they could be locked.
- The Tribunal order issued in May 2025 confirmed that the landlord had given the tenant notice to end the tenancy in response to her issuing 14-day notices and raising these issues. Exemplary damages were awarded for providing retaliatory notice and the landlord put on notice that exemplary damages for breaches of the requirement to adequately maintain the property and ensure it was compliant with required standards (including the Healthy Homes Regulations, and Housing Improvement and Health and Safety Regulations) were sought and final orders would be made.
- Despite this the landlord has continued to attempt to evade the provisions of the RTA and its obligations therein by continuing to dispute jurisdiction and its parallel attempt to settle matters without Tribunal jurisdiction.
- The tenant’s submission that the landlord has deliberately charged high rent for a sub-standard and non-compliant rental is therefore accepted.
- I find the landlord has 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.
- The effect of the unlawful acts is that the tenant has lived in premises that are cold and damp and poorly maintained and been required to bring these proceedings to have the issues addressed.
- The extent of the breaches mean that it is reasonable to assume that the conditions would have been unhealthy for the tenant and her Tamariki.
- There is a strong public health interest in tenants living in warm, safe and healthy tenancies, and that they be provided with required statutory compliance information in relation to tenancies.
- There is an associated public interest in the Tribunal sending a strong message to landlords that they must comply with their statutory obligations in relation to tenancies.
- The issue then becomes assessing the appropriate level of exemplary damages to order.
- The amounts set out in Schedule 1A are maximum amounts.
- In the scheme of things, the Tribunal would only order a maximum level of exemplary damages in the most egregious of cases for the worst offenders, such as when there is a history of breaches being considered in the Tribunal, and the Tribunal’s orders being ignored.
- That is exactly the case here. The landlord has repeatedly ignored MBIE warnings and requirements with respect to several tenancies at this property and others in Taupo. The landlord has also attempted to evade the provisions of the RTA with its conduct in these proceedings.
- I have considered the vulnerability of the tenant, the lengthy period over which the breaches have occurred, and that the property remains non-compliant in a number of respects including smoke alarms, draughts and heating.
- I also take account of the high rent the landlord charges for the tenancy.
- It would have been mitigating if the landlord’s approach since this application was lodged with the Tribunal, had been to proactively investigate and remedy the tenant’s various concerns and attend to them. The landlord has failed to do this.
- This is a case therefore where it is appropriate to impose exemplary damages at the maximum award of $7,200
- In my view this is a level that sends an appropriate deterrent message to landlords, that the requirements with respect to maintenance, healthy homes requirements and health and safety are compulsory, and serious breaches will be punished.
- The exemplary damages are a global award for all breaches under s45(1) to the date of issuing this decision.
- The exemplary damages award includes the breaches of the HHS as well as the failure to maintain the unit in a reasonable condition from the start of the tenancy until the issuing of this order.
- The District Court has recently confirmed in the case of MBIE v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583, that a global award is the correct approach to awarding exemplary damages when the claim is for multiple breaches of s 45. The Court said: “the $7,200 maximum penalty for a landlord failing to meet their obligations pursuant to s 45(1) is the largest amount listed in schedule 1A (along with the maximum penalty for breaching s66I(4) which is the equivalent for boarding houses). In my view, this comparatively high quantum reinforces it is intended to be a global award for all breaches under s 45. This maximum amount would be meaningless if breaches under s 45 could be punished separately with the maximum amount multiplied a number of times over.”
- The legislature taking a global approach to exemplary damages for such breaches is logical, given that, in many cases, there will be significant overlap between the different breaches amounting to unlawful acts pursuant to s 45(1)(a)–(ca) and (1A) of the Act. In such cases, independently analysing and awarding separate damages for the breaches under s 45(1) would be artificial and potentially overly punitive (as was the case in the District Court decision of Baxter, where separate awards resulted in “an element of double punishment”).
- Hence, a global approach and maximum award is preferable and adopted. Failure to lodge bond
- [The tenant/s] 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) 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 landlord received the tenant’s bond of $800 from WINZ on 8 August 2024. It remains unlodged. At the first hearing the Tribunal noted that it would be mitigating if the bond was immediately lodged and aggravating if it was not.
- The bond centre records confirm that the bond remains unlodged. I find the landlord has 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.
- As the landlord was clearly on notice that it was required to lodge the bond and has failed to do so or failed to provide any explanation for its actions, I infer intent and award the maximum exemplary damages available for the breach.
- I also direct that the bond must be refunded in full and immediately to the tenant.
- The tenants request for name suppression is approved as she has been largely successful.