What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5243594 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders name suppression to apply for all tenants in these

How much money was awarded in case 5243594?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5243594?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5243594?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13317505-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5243594 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders name suppression to apply for all tenants in these

How much money was awarded in case 5243594?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5243594?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5243594?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13317505-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

113 Beach Road, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5243594 — Healthy homes

Order

The Tribunal orders name suppression to apply for all tenants in these premises.
By consent of the parties, the Tribunal declares that the premises are a boarding house.
By consent of the parties, the Tribunal declares that that landlord has committed the following unlawful acts: a. Failure to comply with an improvement notice (section 126(J) of the Act), 1 breach. b. Contracting to contravene or evade the provisions of the Act (sections 137(1)(b) and (2) of the Act), 20 breaches. c. Breaching duties in receipt of bond (section 19(2) of the Act), 4 breaches. d. Failing to meet obligations in relation to Healthy Homes Standards (sections 66(1)(bb) and (4) of the Act), 10 breaches. e. Failing to produce documents to the Chief Executive (sections 123A(4) and (5)(a) of the Act), 1 breach. f. Failing to provide mandatory information in the tenancy agreements (sections 13A(1A), (1CA), and (2) of the Act), 20 breaches.
Beach Road Properties Limited must pay the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the sum of $44,450.00 for exemplary damages, as follows: BreachNumber of breaches Amount ordered Failure to comply with an improvement notice – s126 1$1,500.00 Contracting to evade the provisions of the Act – s137 20$18,000.00 Failure to lodge bond - s194$1,200.00 Failure to meet Healthy Homes Standards – s66 10$20,000.00 Failure to produce documents – s123A 1$750.00 Failure to provide mandatory information in tenancy agreement -s13A(1A), (1CA) and (2), (1F(a) 20$3,000.00
By consent of the parties, Beach Road Properties Limited is restrained from committing any further breaches of sections 126(J), 137(1)(b) and 137(2), 19(2), 66(1)(bb) and 66(4), 123A(4) and 123A(5)(a), and 13A(1A), (1CA) and 123(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), for a period of two years.
Beach Road Properties Limited must forward all bond money received from the affected tenants to the Bond Centre immediately.
Beach Road Properties Limited must repay any rent overpaid by the tenants in advance, to be repaid immediately.
By consent of the parties, Beach Road Properties Limited must pay the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the sum of $27.00, being the filing fee paid to commence this proceeding, that is to be paid immediately.
The following applications are withdrawn: a. Application requiring rent before the rent paid in advance had expired (sections 23(1)(b) and (4)(a) of the Act) (10 breaches). b. Application regarding failure to ensure tenancy agreements include certain minimum information (section 13A(1AAA) of the Act) (20 breaches).

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, within the Chief Executive’s enforcement jurisdiction. The respondent is Beach Road Properties Limited, a boarding house landlord.

BACKGROUND

This dispute relates to premises at 113 Beach Road in Auckland, which the parties agree are boarding house premises.
There are 20 tenancies of relevance. The fact of the tenancies are not disputed, so I will not record the names of the tenants in this order. 1
The premises were selected as one of 36 by MBIE to be part of a nationwide boarding house audit.
After a site visit and inspection, MBIE issued an improvement notice on 16 May 2024, compliance with that notice was extended to 22 July 2024 at the landlord's request. MBIE report that as of 23 July 2024, the landlord had only provided evidence showing remediation of two out of the seven required items.
On 19 February 2025, MBIE sent a second notice requiring the production of documents, but MBIE report that was not complied with. A third production notice was sent on 11 March 2025.
On 24 April 2025, the Chief Executive filed this application with the Tribunal.
On 26 April 2025, the premises were significantly flooded, when a neighbouring property suffered a burst water main. The landlord terminated 1 I have ordered name suppression for the tenants, only because that will also apply for any search made of the file, but there is no content in this written decision that name suppression will apply to. all tenancies and relocated the tenants to alternate accommodation at the Landlord’s cost. Mediation
The parties proceeded to a mediation, and from that, an agreed statement of facts was reached, and the parties also agreed that consent orders could be made. The only matter that could not be settled related to the quantum of the exemplary damages order, which is the subject of this decision. Adjudication
The matter was returned to the Tribunal, before Adjudicator Lash 2 . Ms Lash issued directions on 20 October 2025, where she recorded the following agreements from the parties (consent orders): a. An order finding that the subject premise is a boarding house. b. An order finding that the respondent has committed the following unlawful acts: i. Failure to comply with an improvement notice (section 126(J) of the Act) by not providing evidence of remediation of the remaining five contraventions identified in the improvement notice by the extended due date of 22 July 2024 (1 breach). ii. Contracting to contravene or evade the provisions of the Act (in relation to 20 affected tenants) (sections 137(1)(b) and (2) of the Act), by entering into tenancy agreements containing provisions and requirements contrary to the Act (20 breaches). iii. Breaching duties in receipt of bond (in relation to four affected tenants) (section 19(2) of the Act) by requiring bond amounts over one weeks' rent and failing to lodge those bonds with the Bond Centre. (4 breaches). iv. Failing to meet obligations in relation to healthy homes standards, who began their tenancies prior to 29 November 2024 (sections 66(1)(bb) and (4) of the Act) by failing to have a working qualifying heater installed in the affected tenants' rooms at the start of their tenancies (10 breaches). v. Failing to produce documents to the Chief Executive (sections 123A(4) and (5)(a) of the Act) by not providing 2 Ms Lash has left the Tribunal, hence I have been appointed to conclude this matter. documents in response to the notice to produce specified documents sent to the respondent on 19 February 2025 by the due date of 6 March 2025 (1 breach). vi. Failing to provide mandatory information in the tenancy agreements of each of the 20 affected tenants at Schedule 1 (sections 13A(1A), (1CA), and (2) of the Act) by failing to include an insulation statement, healthy homes statement, or insurance statement in the tenancy agreements (20 breaches). c. An order restraining the respondent from committing further unlawful acts of the same kind, for a period of two years. d. An order requiring the respondent to forward all bond money received from affected tenants, and yet to be refunded, to the Bond Centre. e. An order requiring the respondent to repay any rent in advance overpayments that are yet to be repaid. f. An order requiring the respondent to pay the applicant the $27.00 filing fee. g. An order granting leave for the withdrawal of two of the applicant's claims as follows: i. Requiring rent before the rent paid in advance had expired, in relation to 10 affected tenants (sections 23(1)(b) and (4)(a) of the Act) (10 breaches). ii. Failing to ensure tenancy agreements include certain minimum information (section 13A(1AAA) of the Act) (20 breaches). h. That a hearing is required to determine whether exemplary damages should be paid and if so what quantum pursuant to section 109 of the Act. i. That there are no issues as to costs. j. That final orders can be made without suppression orders save as to those required by section 95A(2) of the Act.
I convened a hearing on 22 January 2026 in order to hear from the parties in relation to the quantum issue. In attendance was Mr Thomson for the Landlord, and appearing for the Chief Executive was Mr Hilario. MBIE Officer Mr Miller was also in attendance.
Both representatives had filed written submissions in advance. Those were taken as read. At the hearing, the representatives provided oral responses to the other representatives’ written submissions. CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S CASE
Written submissions were filed in advance by Mr Hilario. The submissions were of course, directed to the only matter in dispute, exemplary damages.
Mr Hilario has set out the relevant law that applies with exemplary damages orders, and then addressed each of the breaches in turn.
Mr Hilario provided the following table, recording the orders that the Chief Executive submits should be made:
At the hearing on 22 January 2026, in response to the written submissions from the landlord, Mr Hilario responded as follows: a. There is no need for a tenant to make a complaint in order for the Chief Executive to undertake an investigation in any particular case. b. There has been evidence provided from a number of tenants over the course of MBIE’s investigation. c. The landlord did provide tenancy agreements for the current tenants, but not the prior tenants, so there was only partial compliance. d. Heaters were not installed until November 2024, and evidence of that was not provided until February 2025. e. Only three of the seven items that are the subject of the improvement notices have been complied with; the outstanding matters were: i. Compliance with insulation statements. ii. Compliance with HHS statements iii. Compliance with insurance statements iv. No evidence has been received showing that the new tenancy agreements were compliant with the RTA. f. There was an 11-month gap between MBIE contacting the landlord and getting any response, despite a range of later communications. Mr Hilario gave examples of the exhibits on file, which confirm this. It was only when the landlord was threatened with legal action that there was any engagement. g. This is a long-standing boarding house. h. Many of the tenants were overseas students, who may well be unaware of their rights or the landlord’s obligations under the RTA. i. Failure to comply with an improvement notice is a serious breach; there is a reasonable expectation that landlords will engage with those. j. It is disputed that the actions of the landlord were no more than careless or unintentional. k. Reference was made to exhibit 68, where the landlord had moved to ‘cover up’ the fact of the unlawful action around bond non-lodgement, by moving to have only 1 week of bond, and the other week applied to rent. When the bond of two weeks was paid, that automatically triggered the obligation to lodge the bond. l. No evidence has been provided of bond returns (at the hearing Mr Miller confirmed that is the case). m. Given the vulnerability of boarding house tenants, they are more at risk than a non-boarding house tenant. n. There was a five-month gap to install the heaters, and then a further four months to provide evidence that work was completed. No explanation has been provided to account for this delay. o. In terms of section 137A, that provision only prohibits an order being made against other penalties in subsection 2 of that provision. If for example exemplary damages are ordered, then there cannot be a fine or pecuniary penalty order made.

RESPONDENTS CASE

Mr Thomson, representing the landlord, submits that the Chief Executive’s claim of $51,400.00, is simply excessive and disproportionate to the breaches. In this case the landlord has taken positive steps to address the breaches, and further has agreed to accept a restraining order, which is a penalty in itself.
Mr Thomson noted that there are some 20 tenancies, but none of the tenants has raised complaints with MBIE.
Otherwise, Mr Thomson provided submissions directed to the six categories of unlawful act claimed.
At the hearing on 22 June 2026, Mr Thomson provided the following additional submissions: a. The Landlord is agreeable to provide copies of further documentation requested by MBIE, which would be relevant for considering the quantum of exemplary damages if any. b. The Landlord's expertise is in operating a supermarket, and the Landlord was not sure of the role of MBIE and what they were doing. It is accepted that the Landlord should have obtained earlier legal advice, as it was only when proceedings were commenced that they took that step. c. MBIE has not provided any evidence to show harm from not having heaters, however it is accepted that there is a legal requirement for them. d. It is submitted that there should not be overlapping orders with reference to the appeal decision of Gardner.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), 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 likely.
It is the applicant, the Chief Executive, that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike 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.

ANALYSIS

The significant majority of matters in this case have been agreed by the parties, and are the subject of an application for consent orders. The only matter that remains disputed is the quantum of any exemplary damages order.
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 (Cooke P) said: 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 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. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.
The prerequisite for making any order of exemplary damages, is that there must first be an established unlawful act. In this case the landlord has accepted that it committed the six unlawful acts (over various tenancies), so that gateway criterion has been met.
I will now consider the six categories of claim for which exemplary damages are requested. Claim 1 – Failure to comply with an improvement notice – s126H.
The Chief Executive submits that the landlord has failed to comply with an improvement notice under section 126(J), in that the landlord has not provided evidence of remediation in relation to five of the required work items, despite the period for compliance being extended. The Chief Executive seeks an order for 1 breach, and an order of $2,400.00.
In response, the landlord does not dispute that it failed to comply with the notices, however it was submitted that the work required has been complied with. It is submitted that in the scheme of things, the breach is minor. Analysis
The relevant provisions of the RTA which relate to improvement notices, as far as this dispute is concerned, commence at section 126H, which provides the Chief Executive with the ability to issue improvement notices: 126H Power to issue improvement notices (1) This section applies if the chief executive reasonably believes that a person— (a) is contravening a provision of this Act, of regulations made under this Act, or of a tenancy agreement; or (b) is likely to contravene a provision of this Act, of regulations made under this Act, or of a tenancy agreement. (2) The chief executive may issue an improvement notice requiring the person to— (a) remedy the contravention; or (b) prevent a likely contravention from occurring; or (c) remedy the things or activities causing the contravention or likely to cause a contravention.
Section 126I then sets out the content required in an improvement notice.
Section 126J addresses the situation of the party failing to comply with an improvement notice: 126J Compliance with improvement notice (1) A failure to comply with an improvement notice is an unlawful act. (2) It is not an unlawful act to fail to comply with recommendations in an improvement notice.
The RTA also sets out a process upon which a landlord can object to an improvement notice, that is found at section 126M, requiring any challenge application to be filed with the Tenancy Tribunal within 28 days.
In this case there is no dispute that the matters raised in the improvement notice were not reasonable; this is simply a case where only some of the required matters were addressed in the time required.
Failing to comply with an improvement notice is deemed an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages could be ordered, the maximum being $3,000.00. I have determined that exemplary damages should be ordered having considered the section 109 factors: a. The evidence would support that the landlord’s failure to comply with the improvement notice, was an intentional decision, and therefore the breach is intentional. I am not persuaded that the landlord would not have been aware of its obligation to comply with the notices. Certainly I have not received evidence from the landlord suggesting otherwise. The notices are clear, and provide clear information on how to challenge the notice, including the consequences of failing to comply with it. b. The effect for the tenants, is that some of the defects identified in the notices have not been remedied. In my view, it is a matter of significance when a landlord fails to comply with an improvement notice. It undercuts the protections that are available for vulnerable tenants and consumes public resources chasing up compliance. I am not convinced the breaches are trivial or minor. c. There is an interest for tenants and the public generally, that tenants are supplied with the information required in the Act, particularly before they sign the tenancy agreement, so they know a range of factors around the tenancy. There is also a strong interest for tenants that improvement notices are complied with to ensure tenants live in compliant tenancies. d. I consider it would be just to order exemplary damages, given the circumstances around the breach.
I have determined that exemplary damages at 50% of the maximum (the maximum being $3,000.00) should be ordered.
In reaching that amount I have taken into consideration these factors: a. I have not seen evidence of a history of this landlord breaching compliance notices previously, which would call for a higher percentage order. b. Some account must be taken for the approach of the landlord in this proceeding, that includes accepting the breach and working to settle the dispute at mediation. c. I am not persuaded that there are aggravating factors that would argue for a higher order.
The order is therefore $1,500.00. Claim 2 – Contracting to evade the provisions of the Act – s137
The Chief Executive submits that the landlord contracted to contravene the provisions of the RTA with respect to 20 tenancies, by entering tenancy agreements containing unlawful requirements or restrictions. Orders are requested for 20 breaches, at $900.00 per breach.
The landlord submits that there was carelessness and naivety, as opposed to a high degree of intent. Only two of the tenants have raised concerns. It was submitted that a restraining order would be a sufficient penalty. Analysis
Section 137 relates to prohibited transactions, and prohibits landlords (and tenants) from entering into agreements which do anything that has the effect of directly or indirectly defeating, evading or preventing the operation of the Act, or entering into agreements that would contravene any provisions of the Act.
The maximum level of exemplary damages for a breach of section 137 is $1,800.00.
In this case the landlord had a number of unlawful clauses in the tenancy agreements, which had the following effects: a. Required a minimum 4 week tenancy, when fixed-term boarding house tenancies are unlawful. b. Allowing rent increases with only 2 months’ notice, less than the statutory minimum. c. Requiring tenants to give 2 weeks notice to end the tenancy, more than the minimum required in the RTA. d. Allowing the landlord to terminate the tenancy with less notice than would be required.
MBIE were also concerned that when it was raised with the landlord that it could not hold two weeks of bond (more than one week means the bond needed to be lodged in the Bond Centre), the landlord provided updated tenancy agreements, where the ‘extra’ week of bond was apportioned to rent. I am not convinced that approach is necessarily problematic. If the tenants were agreeable to use the additional week as rent, there is no problem. Bond is the tenant's money, if the tenants agree to it being used for rent, that is lawful.
However, certainly the four noted provisions above are problematic.
Again the fact of the breach is not disputed. I consider that exemplary damages must be ordered taking the following into account: a. I consider it very likely the breach was intentional. This is a sizeable boarding house operation, the landlord must have known there were obligations on boarding house landlords, and restrictions on what they can contract for. b. The effect for the tenants in this case was real. There is a strong likelihood that the tenants would have accepted on face value, the restrictions that the tenancy agreement carried. That may well have impacted decisions they made. c. There is a very strong interest for tenants, and the public generally, that landlords do not contract in ways that evade, or defeat the Act. d. I have no doubt that making an order would be just in this case.
In this case, the Chief Executive seeks in order at 50% of the maximum, and I consider that would be reasonable. There are a number of unlawful terms that were in the tenancy agreement, and these are more likely to be vulnerable tenants. Awarding half of the potential maximum would also take into account the approach the landlord has taken with resolving the claim against them, such as via mediation. The result is that I order $900.00 exemplary damages, per tenancy. Claim 3 – Failure to lodge bond - s19
The Chief Executive seeks exemplary damages for the Landlord’s failure to lodge bonds in excess of 1 week of bond, for 4 tenancies.
The landlord submits that there was carelessness and naivety, as opposed to a high degree of intent, and a breach with two tenancies only. The Landlord accepts there is a public interest in bonds being lodged with the Bond Centre, and that it failed to meet that obligation in this case. Analysis
The general expectation is that when a bond is paid to a landlord, it must be lodged with the Bond Centre within 23 working days (s19(1)). However, section 19(1A) and 66D confirm that in a boarding house tenancy, if the bond paid is less than 1 week of rent, then the landlord does not need to pay that into the Bond Centre, but there are some other specific obligations under section 66D.
In this case, in four tenancies, the landlord has charged more than 1 week of bond, and that means the landlord needed to lodge the full bond received for those 4 tenancies with the Bond Centre, within 23 working days.
I consider that exemplary damages should be ordered: a. I consider it most likely that the breach was intentional. This is a sizeable boarding house operation, and it would be expected that the landlord would be well familiar with its obligations around bond lodgement and management. b. There are strong interests for tenants, landlords and the public generally for the bond system to be robust and compliant, to maintain bonds in trust for the parties. c. I consider it would be just to make an order in this case, particularly given the size of the operation, and the likely vulnerability of the boarding house tenants.
The maximum level of exemplary damages for a breach of section 19, is $1,500.00. I have determined that an order at 20% of the maximum would be required, taking into account the following factors: a. The respective rents are on the lower end of rents in general. That would support a lower level of exemplary damages, so the penalty is more proportionate to the rent paid to the landlord. b. Again I consider that account should be taken of the Landlord’s approach to resolve and consent to orders at mediation.
Therefore, I order exemplary damages of $300.00 per breach, which means a total order of $1,200.00 for these breaches. Claim 4 – Breach of Healthy Homes Standards – s66
The Chief Executive submits that the landlord has failed to have a working qualifying heater installed in 10 affected tenants’ rooms at the start of their tenancies, in breach of sections 66I(1)(bb) and (4), that is, the Healthy Homes Standards.
Again the Landlord considers that this is a breach of carelessness or naivety, and that any impact on the tenants would be of less significance, given this is a boarding house, so likely shorter stays than a standard residential tenancy. The landlord has now installed heaters. Analysis
Boarding houses must comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) just like landlords in standard residential tenancies must (see s66I(1)(bb)).
Again the Landlord has not disputed failure to comply, and consented to the finding of an unlawful act.
I am satisfied that exemplary damages should be ordered: a. Plainly the decisions made not to have heaters installed, were intentional, and even when the issue was raised by the MBIE officers, the landlord was slow to act. b. The effect for the tenants is that they lived in premises that were not adequately heated. It is not a defence to a claim for a breach of the. HHS to say that heating was not provided because it was over warmer months in the summer. The requirement to provide heating is strict. c. There is a very strong interest for tenants, and the public in general, that tenancies are warm and healthy. d. In the circumstances of this case, making an order would be just.
The maximum level of exemplary damages that could be awarded for the breach, is $7,200.00. The Chief Executive seeks in order of $2,000.00 per breach, which is less than 30% of the maximum. It is relevant to observe that the maximum levels are set by Parliament, no doubt based on Parliament’s assessment of the significance of the respective requirements. But when viewed as a proportion of the maximum, I do not consider that a 30% order would be excessive, and taking into consideration that the rents for the premises are on the lower end of the scale, an order at 30% of the maximum does seem reasonable, and that is ordered. Claim 5 - Failure to produce documents – s123A
The Chief Executive seeks exemplary damages for a failure of the Landlord to produce specified documents required to be produced by 6 March 2025, being 1 breach.
The Landlord submits that any breach was minor in the scheme of things, and must be viewed in light of MBIE’s own oversight around overlooking the matter for some six months. Analysis
I accept that the Landlord has failed to produce the requested documents, again the Landlord has accepted that there has been a breach.
The authority for the Chief Executive to request this documentation is found in section 123A of the RTA. That provision confirms that a landlord must retain certain documentation during and for 12 months after the termination of a tenancy, including the tenancy agreement and any variations.
That provision then states: (2) The chief executive may by notice in writing require a landlord to produce to the chief executive any specified documents, or any documents of a specified class, that the landlord is required to retain under subsection (1)(b) to (g) or under section 30 (relating to rent and bond records). (3) ... (4) A landlord who receives a notice under subsection (2) must, within 10 working days of receiving the notice, produce the documents to the chief executive in the way specified in the notice. (5) A landlord who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with subsection (4)— (a) commits an unlawful act; and (b) commits an infringement offence and is liable to a fine or an infringement fee specified in Schedule 1B.
In this case, I am satisfied that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 123A, but again the landlord has accepted that is the case. I find that exemplary damages should be ordered in that: a. I consider the breach would have been intentional. No real explanation has been presented for why the documents were not provided. Wanting the tenants consent is not a defence. b. The effect of the breach is that the Chief Executive has been unable to properly progress the investigation, and as seen in this order, has delayed the identification of breaches in the tenancy agreements. c. There are strong interests, particularly for tenants and the public generally, that MBIE are able to undertake investigations, which include obtaining required documents from Landlords. Failing to comply with production orders obstructs any ability to investigate matters. d. I consider it would be just to make an order in this case.
The question then is the quantum of the order, and in this case, I have determined that the order should be 50% of the maximum ($1,500.00), therefore the order must be $750.00. I reach that conclusion for these reasons: a. Failing to produce required documents has a real impact with obstructing lawful investigations, which would argue for a higher order. b. But again, credit should be provided for the Landlord’s approach to this proceeding, accepting wrongdoing at an early opportunity, and agreeing to consent orders. c. Again the rent at these premises is more modest, meaning a reduced order of exemplary damages would result in a more proportionate outcome.
I therefore order $750.00 of exemplary damages for this single breach. Claim 6 – Failure to provide information on tenancy agreement – s13A
The final claim from the Chief Executive relates to a failure of the Landlord to include specific information in tenancy agreements, including insulation statements, healthy homes statements or insurance statements, and there are breaches for 20 tenancies.
The Landlord's position is that this breach overlaps claims 2, 3 and 4 above, so there is an element of double dipping in claims. It was submitted that where there are a number of breaches of the same section of the Act, only one order of exemplary damages should be made. Analysis
Section 13A sets out the requirements for information on tenancy agreements, and that includes a requirement to provide a statement setting out information with respect to the insulation situation at the premises (s13A(1A), a statement around compliance with the HHS (s13A(1C)), and information about the insurance situation at the premises.
The maximum level of exemplary damages for breaching section 13A is $750.00.
There is no dispute around the fact of the breaches.
I consider that exemplary damages should be ordered for these reasons: a. I consider the breach must be considered intentional. Relevant information was missing in a large number of tenancies, so it could not be a case of oversight with a tenancy or two. This is a sizeable boarding house operation, so It can be accepted that such an experienced landlord would be well aware of its obligations under the RTA. This case is analogous T.M.T New Zealand Limited Trading as Strata Property Management v Kirk Liam Sweeney and Anne-mette Holmgard Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182. In that case the landlord had failed to provide an insurance and healthy homes compliance statement. The Court held that: The obligation to provide these documents are fundamental obligations on landlords of which it appears Mr Hu was not fully aware despite their being included in the Act since 2016 and 2019 respectively. Like all citizens, corporate or otherwise, he and his company are deemed to know the law and on that basis a failure to provide these fundamental documents is properly seen as intentional. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape consequence for the unlawful acts involved by claiming ignorance of the law. b. The effect for the tenants, is that they have rented premises without important information being provided, both in relation to the HHS and also insurance. c. There are compelling interests for tenants and the public, for tenants to be provided with this required information. d. I consider that making an order in this case would be just.
The question then is the maximum level of exemplary damages to order. I note the maximum is $750.00.
I do not agree with Mr Thomson that there is an overlap in claims. While there is some overlap in the facts, the sections of the Act under which the claims are made are unique. Mr Thomson has referred to various judgments, submitting that they do not support overlap of orders. In relation to this question, I consider the leading case to be the District Court decision of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583. The Court confirmed that for the purpose of exemplary damages for multiple breaches of the same unlawful act provision, the Tribunal must order exemplary damages as a global order, not for each individual breach.
For example, section 13A sets out wide-ranging expectations around what is in a tenancy agreement. Lets say the landlord failed to include their service address, that would breach s13A(1)(f), and also the amount of the bond which is a breach of s13A(1)(i). This means that there are breaches of two separate obligations under s13A, but for exemplary damages purposes, there must be one global order for all of the section 13A breaches.
Hillis and the other cases do not provide authority for globalising orders under different unlawful act sections.
Again I have determined that an order at 20% of the maximum is indicated, taking into consideration: a. The modest rents, a lesser percentage order is more proportionate to the breach. b. The effect for these tenants would likely be limited, that must be considered in the quantum ordered. c. Account should be given for the approach taken by the landlord in the proceedings, as it relates to consent orders, and accepting wrong doing early.
I therefore order exemplary damages of $150.00 per tenancy, therefore over 20 tenancies, a total order of $3,000.00.

The landlord has consented to a range of other orders. That means, the Chief Executive has requested that the order be made, and the Landlord has agreed that the Tribunal should proceed directly to make the order. I record that all of the following orders, the Tribunal could make. Restraining order
The Landlord agrees to accept a restraining order for a two-year period. What that means is that if the landlord breaches any of the following sections, then an application for a penalty can be made on application to the District Court, within the Court’s criminal jurisdiction.
By consent of the parties, Beach Road Properties Limited is restrained from committing any further breaches of sections: a. 126(J) b. 137(1)(b) and 137(2) c. 19(2) d. 66(1)(bb) and 66(4) e. 123A(4) and 123A(5)(a) f. 13A(1A), (1CA) and g. 123(2)
The restraining order is to apply for a period of two years from the date of this order. Bond money
If the landlord has not done so already, Beach Road Properties Limited must forward all bond money received from the affected tenants to the Bond Centre immediately. Rent overpayments
Beach Road Properties Limited must repay any rent overpaid by the tenants paying in advance, to be repaid immediately. Filing fee
By consent of the parties, Beach Road Properties Limited must pay the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the sum of $27.00, being the filing fee paid to commence this proceeding, that is to be paid immediately.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal must order name suppression to apply for the tenants, that is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5243594 — Healthy homes at 113 Beach Road, Auckland

Tenancy Tribunal case 5243594 — Healthy homes at 113 Beach Road, Auckland

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RESPONDENTS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RESPONDENTS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RESPONDENTS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

CONSENT ORDERS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RESPONDENTS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

CONSENT ORDERS

NAME SUPPRESSION