What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5273923 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5273923?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5273923?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5273923?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13813947-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5273923 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5273923?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5273923?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5273923?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13813947-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Justine Street, Cannons Creek, Porirua 5024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5273923 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5273923 — net $2,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$2,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,028.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,028.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5273923 — net $2,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$2,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,028.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,028.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Tapro Limited and [The landlord/s] must pay The Chief Executive, Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment $2,028.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. Description Tenant Exemplary damages $2,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Total award $2,028.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $2,028.00
The work order issued by the Tribunal on 8 August 2025 is amended, to now require that Tapro Limited and [The landlord/s] to undertake the following work no later than by 9 May 2026: a. Complete the following repairs to all windows at the property: i. Ensure there are no gaps when windows are shut. No draughts should be entering the house when the windows are closed. ii. Ensure that every window can be easily opened and closed as desired. 5356692 2 iii. All window hardware (window handles, latches etc) are properly installed and in good working order. iv. All rotting frames are repaired to a reasonable condition. v. The stairwell window is properly fixed so it no longer leaks. b. Ensure there are no gaps or holes in all gutters. c. This work is to be completed by a licensed Building Practitioner (LBP) or inspected by an LBP to ensure it complies with the Building Code. d. By no later than 9 May 2025, the respondents are to provide TCIT with evidence from an LBP to show all windows and gutters comply with the building code.
In the event that all work orders set out in paragraph 3 above (including the confirmation from the LBP) are not complied with by 9 May 2026, then the tenant’s weekly rental is to be reduced by $135.00 per week, until all requirements in paragraph 3 are complied with.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider a further application filed by the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, in relation to concerns regarding the standard of these tenancy premises. The Chief Executive (the Applicant), consider that the landlord has not complied with the earlier Tribunal orders regarding work being undertaken to the premises, and now seeks further orders in relation to that.
A hearing was convened in Porirua today. Representing the applicant was Mr Burden, and Mr Perera (the Landlord) was also in attendance. We heard evidence from one witness, that was Ms O’Keeffe who is an investigator with MBIE (the Investigator).

BACKGROUND

As will be discussed shortly, the Tribunal has previously considered two earlier applications from the Applicant in relation to this Tenancy, and the relevant background has been set out fully in those orders. I will not recite it again, other than to provide a summary for context.
The tenancy commenced in 2012. The dwelling could be broadly described as an older-style wooden building with wooden joinery.
In June 2023 a Healthy Homes Assessment was undertaken of the dwelling from the health service, and following that, a complaint was made to MBIE regarding the state of the premises. The matter came within the scope of the Tenancy Compliance Investigation Team (TCIT), which is the group 5356692 3 within MBIE that undertakes compliance work involving the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). TCIT act on behalf of the Chief Executive under a delegated authority.
TCIT undertook inspections in October 2023, including with a weather- tightness assessor, and engaged with the landlord.
Ultimately, TCIT were not satisfied that the defects in the tenancy were being addressed in a reasonably expedient way, and filed an application with the Tenancy Tribunal, seeking various orders. Tribunal order 7 March 2025
The first order of the Tribunal of relevance was issued by Adjudicator Lash and dated 7 March 2025. Ms Lash heard extensive evidence and was satisfied that there was a range of defects with the premises. The Adjudicator ordered that the landlord: Complete repairs to all windows (including frames and sills) to ensure there are no draughts, and the windows function effectively; and Complete repairs to all guttering / spouting.
The adjudicator ordered that work to be completed by 31 March 2025. Adjudicator further ordered $5,000.00 exemplary damages for a breach of the Landlord’s building and repair obligations, as well as costs. Tribunal order 8 August 2025
When TCIT did not consider the landlord had complied with the March 2025 order, a further application was made to the Tribunal, and the matter came before myself on 8 August 2025. I issued an order that same day.
The chief executive requested that the work order be varied, to provide greater specificity around what work was needed and that the landlord would need confirmation from a licensed building practitioner (LBP) that the work was completed to an adequate standard.
After assessing the evidence, I was satisfied that some of the work had been completed to the premises, but not all. The landlord had provided an HHS assessment report, which I did not consider to be an accurate reflection of the premises, based on the other evidence presented to the Tribunal. The requested work order variation was approved.
I also ordered exemplary damages for a failure to comply with the work order. In relation to that, I noted in the order:
I consider the breach [of Ms Lash’s work order] is almost certainly intentional. There is no doubt that the landlord would have known what 5356692 4 it needed to do in relation to the original work order, and in fact some work was completed. The effect of the breach is that the tenant has continued to live in a draughty and damp property. There are very strong interests for tenants, landlords and the public generally that landlords maintain their tenancies and comply with work orders. In this case, I consider it would be just to make an order.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act, which for a breach of section 108(2A) is $5,000.00. I have determined that an order of $750.00 should be made. I recognise that order may seem low, but I have taken into consideration that the landlord has undertaken some of the necessary work by April 2025, but what was completed fell short. I also get the impression that the landlord is focused on getting the necessary work completed, and that is consistent with the wider work that has been undertaken, like replacing the roof for instance. I also take into account the fact that the rent charged for these premises is modest.
In addition to the order of exemplary damages of $750.00, the following work orders were made: The work order issued by the Tribunal on 7 March 2025 is amended, to now require that the landlord and [The landlord/s] undertake the following work no later than by 25 August 2025: a. Complete the following repairs to all windows at the property: i. Ensure there are no gaps when windows are shut. No draughts should be entering the house when the windows are closed. ii. Ensure that every window can be easily opened and closed as desired. iii. All window hardware (window handles, latches etc) are properly installed and in good working order. iv. All rotting frames are repaired to a reasonable condition. v. The stairwell window is properly fixed so it no longer leaks. b. Ensure there are no gaps or holes in all gutters. c. This work is to be completed by a licensed Building Practitioner (LBP) or inspected by an LBP to ensure it complies with the Building Code. d. By no later than 25 August 2025, the respondents are to provide TCIT with evidence from the LBP to show all windows and gutters comply with the building code Further application made 5356692 5
TCIT did not consider that the landlord had complied with the amended work order, and so has filed this further application with the Tribunal. The Applicant now seek: a. Further exemplary damages for breaching the work order. b. Extension of work order for one month to allow the work to be completed. c. Reduction of rent by $135 per week if further work orders are not complied with, to continue until the work is completed.
A hearing was convened in Porirua today to consider this third application.

WITNESS EVIDENCE

Only one witness was called to give evidence at the hearing, that was Ms O’Keeffe, the Investigator. Ms O’Keeffe’s evidence
Ms O’Keeffe attended the hearings, where she gave evidence, and had provided a written brief of evidence in advance.
Ms O’Keeffe is an investigator for MBIE, and was assigned as the investigator in this case.
In short, Ms O’Keeffe’s evidence is to the extent that the Landlord has not completed the work which was required by the August 2025 order. The Investigator set out the background with the further attendances at the premises, and from that, it was assessed that only limited work had been completed.
The Investigator notes reminding the Landlord on 25 August 2025 that he needed to send evidence to TCIT to confirm the work had been completed, as the August order required, but no confirmation was given.
The Investigator attended the premises for a site visit in September 2025, and considered that the only work that had been completed was to the gutters. The investigator also notes that the tenant had reported on or around 12 September 2025, that she had not heard from the landlord since the prior Tribunal hearing.
The investigator states in her affidavit that the following work remained outstanding as of March 2026 when she attended the premises: a. Gaps remain in the windows when shut, and draughts are entering the dwelling. 5356692 6 b. Windows cannot be easily opened as desired. c. Window hardware is not properly installed or in good working order. d. The window frames have not been repaired to a reasonable condition; and e. The stairwell window continues to leak.
The Investigator estimated that she had been to the premises around 6-10 times.
It is accepted that a new roof has been installed, and some downstairs work has been undertaken, with a reduction in mould.
Ms O’Keefe states she has not received any further evidence or information from Mr Perera since the earlier hearing.
Ms O’Keefe considers that there is still significant work needed
The investigator states that the tenant recently confirmed that the landlord had been to the premises and had removed one window, replaced it with cardboard, but later replaced the window.
Mr Perera cross-examined the Investigator, that was as follows: a. Mr Perera asked which windows had rot. The investigator advised that the defects have been filled “with a substance” and painted over, but she does not know if it has been correctly repaired. However, on the second floor, outside a window, there appears to be a continuing area of rot, but no other areas of concern have been seen (but the weatherboards are in poor condition). b. The investigator confirmed that she has seen a leak to the stairwell window in March 2026, but it appears they have been filled and painted over. c. The continuing issues with the windows were set out.

APPLICANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the applicant confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Exemplary damages for breaching the work order. b. Extension of work order for one month. c. Reduction of rent of $135 per week if further work orders are not complied with, to continue until the work is completed. 5356692 7
The Applicant’s position is that the landlord has failed to comply with the work orders of the Tribunal, and for that, exemplary damages should be ordered.
In this case, the landlord has over a long period been slow to have the work at the dwelling addressed, and it is only in the shadow of attending the Tribunal, that the landlord has had work completed, such as undertaking a focused effort over the previous week or so prior to the hearing today.
Otherwise, the landlord has not provided evidence from an LBP that the work has been properly completed.
In this case, the Chief Executive submits that it would be an appropriate case for exemplary damages to be ordered, given the clear failure of the landlord to comply. There has been a real effect on these tenants who would be vulnerable tenants.
It is the Applicant’s position that exemplary damages at or near the maximum should be ordered. In the circumstances, it is also submitted that a short extension of time should be made to have the work completed, but a reduction of the rent to apply until the work is completed.

LANDLORDS CASE

The Landlord’s position is that the rent is $270.00 per week, which is very low by Wellington standards.
However, the landlord accepts that the work has been delayed, which has in part been because of the costs involved.
The Landlord consider that the tenants may have contributed to the issues in the house, such as not using the rangehood.
The Landlord also says that he did not receive the earlier order.
In relation to the work ordered, the Landlord says: a. The draught stopping has been completed, which included replacing hinges. Some of this work has been delayed given the extent of the work needed, including needing scaffolding, but the landlord says the draughts have been addressed. b. All windows can be opened and closed on the ground floor (the landlord checked those), but he has not checked the bedroom windows. c. All window hardware was checked and replaced by a builder when needed. 5356692 8 d. There are no rotten window frames. e. The landlord considers that there could be water coming in from old putty with the stairway window, and that scaffolding will be set up to fix this, but the Landlord accepts that this is still an issue. f. The gutters have been replaced around August / September 2025.
The Landlord notes that the dwelling was purchased as a retirement investment, so he wants to make sure they are properly fixed.
The landlord states that he had the work overseen or completed by an LBP, but he accepts that evidence was not provided to TCIT of that.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides the Tribunal with an ability to make a range of orders at section 78, and that includes work orders. A work order is simply an order that the Tribunal makes, that requires a landlord or tenant to do specific work as set out in that order.
Section 108 of the RTA relates to the enforcement of work orders and confirms that the Tribunal may consider an application from a party, if they consider that a work order has not been complied with. The Tribunal is able to make an order varying the work order, or to order it exemplary damages if the breach occurred without reasonable excuse. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (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: 5356692 9 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.

ANALYSIS

The application is to the extent that the landlord has not complied with the most recent work order issued on 8 August 2025, and having considered the available evidence, I agree with the investigator that there has only been partial compliance. The work order required that the landlord address defects with the windows and the gutter.
I will deal with the gutter first, and record that the investigator’s view is that the issues with the gutter have probably been addressed, so that aspect of the work order has likely been complied with. But I have not seen evidence from an LBP confirming the work was of an acceptable standard.
However, I am not persuaded that the landlord has addressed all the defects with the Windows. The investigator has provided recent updated photographs from inspections in March 2026, and those support a conclusion that there is continuing leaking with some windows, there are gaps shown between the window and the frame when closed that would allow draughts, and there are likely issues continuing with window hardware.
There is a further aspect of the Tribunal’s August 2025 decision that has also not been complied with, that was the requirement that the landlord provide evidence from an LBP to show that all windows and gutters comply with the Building Code. That confirmation has not been provided at all, let alone by 25 August 2025, when the landlord needed to provide it.
In terms of the application for exemplary damages, I conclude that exemplary damages should be ordered. I am certain that the landlord’s breach was intentional, in the sense that I consider he would have known the obligations he faced under the previous work order, and even when reminded by the investigator, did not get the work done. The effect for these tenants is that they have lived in premises that are damper, colder, and more draughty than they should have been. There is a strong interest for tenants and the public generally that tenancies be warm, dry and healthy, which I accept this Tenancy would not be, given the breaches. I consider it would be just to make an order in this case, particularly given the now significant opportunity that the landlord has had to remedy the defects.
The maximum level of exemplary damages for a breach under section 108, is $5,000. In this case I have determined that an additional exemplary damages order at $2,000 would be appropriate, and that is ordered. In 5356692 10 reaching that figure, I have taken into account that the Tribunal has already made an order for a work order breach in this case, at $750. The Tribunal’s order in August 2025 was a variation of the existing order, so any further breach arising needs to be within the statutory maximum for both orders combined. I am also minded that the rent that the landlord charges in this case is, I accept, very low by Wellington standards, and some work has been finished. An order of $2,000 would be proportionate to the rent received.
The Applicant also seeks an extension in time to allow the landlord to complete the necessary work, which makes sense. It should be emphasised here that the focus from the Tribunal is getting the work completed, in order that the tenants can live in a healthy dwelling, so there must be a degree of practicality in the orders made. It makes sense to allow an additional opportunity for the work to be completed.
The applicant also seeks a rent reduction in the event that the work is not completed within the month as required. In my assessment, that request is reasonable. It should be noted that while there are extensive defects with the premises that have been identified over time, compensation has not been ordered by the Tribunal for that, and to be clear, exemplary damages is not the same as compensation, which is an order of money to make good a person’s loss. The loss would be the loss of amenity or enjoyment of the premises, given the defects.
I therefore order that in the event the work order is not complied with by 9 May 2026, the tenant’s rent is to be reduced by $135 per week, from that date.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal orders continued name suppression for the tenant .

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5273923 — Exemplary damages at 5 Justine Street, Cannons Creek, Porirua 5024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5273923 — Exemplary damages at 5 Justine Street, Cannons Creek, Porirua 5024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

WITNESS EVIDENCE

APPLICANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORDS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

WITNESS EVIDENCE

APPLICANTS CLAIMS

LANDLORDS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions