What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356727 about?

The tribunal order states: Muritai Property Investments Limited must pay the Chief Executive, Ministry of

How much money was awarded in case 5356727?

Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356727?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356727?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13505967-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356727 about?

The tribunal order states: Muritai Property Investments Limited must pay the Chief Executive, Ministry of

How much money was awarded in case 5356727?

Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356727?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356727?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13505967-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

33 Muritai Street, Tahunanui, Nelson 7011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5356727 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356727 — net $1,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,528.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356727 — net $1,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$1,500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,528.00

Order

Muritai Property Investments Limited must pay the Chief Executive, Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment $1,528.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), filed within the Chief Executive’s enforcement jurisdiction.
The jurisdiction is exercised by Officers of MBIE, acting under a delegated authority. In practice it is the Tenancy Compliance Investigation Team, or TCIT that exercise that jurisdiction. In this decision, any reference to TCIT or MBIE should be read as meaning the Chief Executive. 5356727 2
The respondent in this case is Muritai Property Investments Limited (Muritai), which is the owner and landlord of the tenancy premises.
Anthony Vining is a director of Muritai and has been the landlords representative both in the engagement with MBIE and the Tribunal.
This application centres around premises that previously operated as a motel in Nelson. Over the course of time, that operation changed, and the premises started operating as room-by-room residential tenancies, which in turn means the landlord must meet its obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The Chief Executive has determined that the landlord has breached some of those obligations, which are the subject of this application before the Tribunal.

BACKGROUND

The premises located at 33 Muritai Street in Nelson, and comprise what has the clear appearance of a previous motel complex. The complex comprises 10 units, and those are rented to individual tenants by way of standard tenancy agreements. The premises trade as Kea Apartments.
The Nelson City Council raised a complaint with MBIE regarding the tenancy premises. That same day, TCIT (Investigator Sullivan) made an unannounced inspection of the premises. Seven of the units were viewed, with the inspector determining that the landlord had failed to comply with its obligations under the RTA, in particular, four units did not have required extractor fans in the bathrooms or kitchens, and three units did not have smoke alarms.
TCIT advised that the premises at that time were being managed by Michelle Schwarze, who tendered her resignation to her employer that same day. The landlord states that Ms Schwarze was the occupant in unit 7.
The Investigator contacted the landlord on 28 March 2024, advising of the shortcomings around smoke alarms and the premises, and raising issues with the tenancy agreements. At that time, the Respondent advised that Muritai had terminated the tenancy agreements that were in place, based on advice from MSD.
On 2 April 2024, Muritai provided a further response to the Investigator that: a. Ms Schwarze was managing the premises up until her resignation on 21 February 2024. b. No terminations had been made, they were trying to work around the tenants, and there were six tenants remaining in the premises.
On 9 April 2024, the Investigator wrote to the landlord requiring that the tenancy agreements be provided, from which three agreements were supplied on 23 June 2024. 5356727 3
In an email on 30 July 2024, the landlord indicated there were eight tenants remaining in the complex, five ‘original’ tenants and three ‘new’ tenants.
On 14 August 2024 there was a change of investigator from Mr Sullivan to Mr Leighton.
On 28 August 2024, Mr Leighton undertook a further site visit. In his records, Mr Leighton notes that the unit 3 tenant had lived there for some 3 months, and had paid a bond of $2,400 to Christine Vinning.
On 26 September 2024, Mr Leighton wrote to the landlord, requiring the following documents to be produced within 10 working days: a. All current tenancy agreements. b. Records of building works and maintenance. c. Copies of all assessments and reports. d. Copies of documents showing compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards. e. Proof of ceiling and underfloor insulation. f. Proof of smoke alarms.
On 10 October 2024, the landlord wrote to the inspector stating he could not enter the premises without first contacting the landlord for permission.
Mr Leighton engaged in further communications and, on 11 October 2024 received nine photographs showing smoke alarms. The Investigator states that it was not clear whether they were compliant smoke alarms, or the respective locations the alarms were installed.
Following an inquiry with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), on 10 January 2025 MSD advised of various payments that were made, which included bond payments for unit 3 (7 June 2024), unit 5 (8 November 2024) and unit 6 (28 November 2024).1 Improvement notice issued
On 10 January 2025, Investigator Mr Leighton emailed the landlord an improvement notice, which required compliance with the notice by 30 January 2025. The notice identified the following assessed breaches: a. Failure to lodge bonds (s19). b. Failure to provide tenancy agreements to all tenants (s13). 1 I note that two of those tenancies would have been following the notice to produce information. 5356727 4 c. Failure to comply with insulation statement requirements (s13A)(1A)-(1C). d. Failure to comply with insurance statement requirements (s13(A2)). e. Failure to comply with Healthy Homes statement requirements (s13A (1CA)- (1CB). f. Failure to comply with smoke alarm obligations (s45(1A)).
The investigator set out various recommendations around how the landlord could comply with its obligations.
The notice confirmed that the landlord was required to remedy the identified breaches by 30 January 2025, and that confirmation was required that the breaches had been addressed.
Importantly, the notice concluded by confirming that if the landlord disagreed with the notice, it could file an objection with the Tenancy Tribunal within 28 days after the notice was served. I record here that no application of objection was filed by the landlord. Landlords response to improvement notice
Also on 10 January 2025, the landlord responded to Mr Leighton, displeased about having received the notice given the time of the year, when many people are still on holiday. The landlord further noted that 90-day termination notices were issued in July 2024, and again the week prior.
Mr Leighton replied later that day, advising that he did not consider the request was onerous and again noting that there was a right to object to the improvement notice, by way of application to the Tribunal within 28 days.
The landlord further responded on 24 January 2025 by way of annotations on the improvement notice. In summary advising: a. There is no record of bonds being paid, or no bonds were paid. b. Copies of the tenancy agreements were not able to be obtained from the last property manager. c. Detail regarding insulation had been provided to the inspector. d. Insurance for the premises could not be obtained. e. The landlord had until July 2025 to comply with the HHS. f. A smoke alarm audit had been undertaken, and the detail provided to the inspector. g. The Inspector had unlawfully spoken to the tenants. h. All tenancy agreements will be terminated before 1 July. 5356727 5
There were further communications between the landlord and the inspector, in short the landlord considering that it either had complied with the requirements, or it did not need to comply.
TCIT engaged in a number of emails with the landlord, to follow up on the improvement notice .
On 3 February 2025, the landlord advised that no bond had been paid for units 4 and 8. Unit 3 went into rent arrears, and the bond was used to offset those arrears.
This application was filed with the Tribunal on 1 October 2025.

HEARING

Mr Leighton’s evidence

Mr Leighton is an investigator with TCIT and filed a formal written statement in advance. Mr Vinning confirmed that he had considered that statement in advance of the hearing, so the statement was taken as read.
Mr Burden asked a range of questions to Mr Leighton. Mr Leighton confirmed that the tenancy agreements he received did not have some of the required information.
In terms of the bond, no bond was lodged with the Bond Centre.
In terms of the requirement to install smoke alarms, some photographs were provided, but Mr Leighton is not sure if they are in all the rooms or if there are compliant smoke alarms.
Mr Vinning was given the opportunity to cross-examine Mr Leighton.
Mr Vinning asked Mr Leighton whether he had given consideration to the fact the premises were to be demolished. Mr Leighton advised that because the premises were used for occupation, the premises needed to comply with the HHS.
Mr Vinning also raised that the improvement notice was sent on 10 January 2025, when many people are on holiday. Mr Leighton responded that he did not consider that what was required was onerous in terms of compliance. Applications
The Chief Executive seeks the following orders: a. Exemplary damages for failing to comply with an improvement notice (s126J(1)). b. A work order requiring the landlord to lodge all bonds, provide compliant insulation statements, HHS, and insurance statements to the tenants, and 5356727 6 for the completion of outstanding maintenance, including installing compliant extractor fans in all bathrooms, and ensuring the premises had complaint smoke alarms. c. A restraining order, restraining further unlawful acts for a period of six years. d. The filing fee to be reimbursed.

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 Chief Executive), 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 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. Exemplary damages
The Tribunal must consider a claim for 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, https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/DLM94278.html?src=qs 5356727 7 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.

ANALYSIS

I will consider the applications in turn, but there is one matter I will address at this time, which is the landlords submission that they are exempt from complying with the RTA because they provide emergency and social housing.
Being a social housing provider is not an exclusion under the RTA from the landlords obligations.
There is an exclusion for tenancies which are emergency or transitional housing, but the landlord has not provided any evidence that these are such tenancies. That type of tenancy falls within contracts provided by the Government, and Muritai has not provided evidence that such contracts apply here.
It is now well settled law, that a landlord cannot avoid its obligations to comply with the RTA, simply by asserting they are emergency or transitional housing providers, even when they house tenants who are in desperate need of housing. See for example the High Court decision of Zan Investment Limited v MBIE [2026] NZHC 254.
I have no reservation in concluding that the obligations under the RTA apply fully to this landlord. Exemplary damages – failure to comply with an improvement notice
The Chief Executive seeks an order of exemplary damages in relation to the landlord’s failure to comply with an improvement notice. 5356727 8
Again, an improvement notice was issued to the landlord on 10 January 2026, which required that the landlord: a. Lodge bonds b. Provide the tenants with tenancy agreements c. Provide the tenants with insulation statements. d. Provide the tenants with insurance statements e. Provide the tenants with an HHS statement f. Comply with smoke alarm obligations.
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 the landlord has not objected to the improvement notice, so the notice is unopposed. 5356727 9
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.
Returning to this particular case, the matter I must decide, is whether Muritai has failed to comply with the 10 January 2025 improvement notice, and I conclude as follows: a. Bonds – while I have serious reservations on whether the landlord has complied with the requirement to lodge the bonds, I find the Chief Executive has not proven that the bonds were not lodged. In the case of some of the tenancies there is compelling evidence the bond was paid to the landlord. The landlords response in some cases is that the bonds were used to cover rent arrears. I have no evidence to dispute that. I have not received direct evidence from any tenant about what happened with their bond, or if their tenancy lasted longer than 23 working days. I do not have any rent ledgers. Ultimately the onus to prove the breach is on the Chief Executive, and I find breaches around bond obligations have not been proven to the balance of probabilities. b. Providing tenancy agreements – The RTA requires that tenancy agreements be provided in writing (section 13). I have not received any evidence to show that written tenancy agreements were not provided to the tenants. Again I have not heard evidence from the tenants, so have been unable to be satisfied that written agreements were not provided. While the landlord has been unable to produce a number of tenancy agreements (because he says his property manager did not return them), that is not the same as saying there was no written tenancy agreement. c. Provide insulation statements, insurance statements, and HHS statements – I will deal with these three matters together. The RTA is clear, that a landlord must provide tenants with a range of statements, that includes statements around insulation, insurance and the HHS. While I do not have all tenancy agreements, I have some which the landlord has provided. Those do not include the required statements. I find that it is likely those statements were not provided either at the start of the tenancy, or after the improvement notice was issued. The landlord has breached its obligations to comply with the improvement notice to that extent. d. Smoke alarm obligations – There are strict obligations on landlords to provide smoke alarms in tenancies. I find a breach has not been proven. The evidence is that after the notice was issued, the landlord sent photographs of smoke alarms, but the Inspector could not establish from those photographs the location or type of smoke alarm. Ultimately, I find that the Chief Executive has not proven that that the landlord has failed to comply with the improvement notice as it relates to smoke alarms. 5356727 10
The end result is that I find the landlord has breached its obligation to comply with the improvement notices as it relates to the three tenancy statements.
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 with the statements, was an intentional decision, and therefore the breach is intentional. The notices are clear, and provide clear information on how to challenge the notice, including the consequences of failing to comply with it. The Inspector has been clear around the landlords requirements with these statements, I cannot view the landlords decision making as anything other than intentional. b. The effect for the tenants is that at least some (if not all) of the tenants did not have the necessary statements required in tenancy agreements. These statements are important documents to provide base information to tenants around potential liability for careless damage (insurance statements), and around the situation with insulation and HHS compliance, which provides important information to tenants around the premises being warm, dry and healthy. 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. d. There is also a strong interest for tenants that improvement notices are complied with to ensure tenants live in compliant tenancies. e. 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 conclusion, 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. This is a substantial tenancy complex, comprising multiple units, and it is likely that this breach is relevant for a number of tenancies. c. I consider the landlord has taken a combative stance when working with the Inspector. If the landlords approach had been different, and the landlord engaged positively to understand and address breaches, it is likely the outcome would be different. 5356727 11 d. I am not persuaded that there are aggravating factors that would argue for a higher order, or mitigating factors requiring a lesser order.
I therefore order exemplary damages of $1,500.00. Work order
The Chief Executive seeks various work orders, which in short, would have got the premises into a legally compliant state.
The landlord states that the premises are currently empty. A resource consent was issued in October 2024 to demolish and rebuild the apartments. The landlord confirms that the premises are not habitable and assures me the premises will not be used for residential use again. I accept what the landlord says in that regard.
As I indicated at the hearing, there is now no further utility in making a work order. I accept that the premises are to be demolished, and if a work order was made, it would have no practical utility. The premises are empty, and I take the landlord at his word that the premises are not to be used again for residential use.
While I will not set out the reasoning in detail as it would be moot, it is fair that I recognise that if it were not for the fact of the pending demolition, it is likely they requested work orders would have been made. But ultimately, the Tribunal does not adjudicate mood or academic matters, which this has become, and therefore, I decline work orders for those reasons, not because the application when it was made did not have merit. Restraining order
The Tribunal has a discretion to make a restraining order if it finds that the landlord has acted unlawfully. In this case, I have found that the landlord has acted unlawfully with the statements on the tenancy agreements. However, I do not consider it would be reasonable to make a restraining order based on those breaches alone. I therefore decline to make this order.

FILING FEE

Because the Chief Executive has been partially successful in this claim, I find that Muritai must pay the filing fee paid to commence this proceeding. 5356727 12

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356727 — Exemplary damages at 33 Muritai Street, Tahunanui, Nelson 7011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356727 — Exemplary damages at 33 Muritai Street, Tahunanui, Nelson 7011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

HEARING

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

HEARING

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions