What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5374604 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 5374604?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,320.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,680.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,680.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5374604?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5374604?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13455165-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5374604 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 5374604?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,320.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,680.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,680.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5374604?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5374604?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13455165-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Multiple Tenancies Tenancy Tribunal Case 5374604 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5374604 — net $17,658.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Section 13A (Tenancy A statements	$250.00	Section 13A (Tenancy A statements
Exemplary damages: Section 45 (Tenancy A landlord obligations	$4,320.00	Section 45 (Tenancy A landlord obligations
Exemplary damages: Section 13A (Tenancy B statements	$300.00	Section 13A (Tenancy B statements
Exemplary damages: Section 45 (Tenancy B landlord obligations	$4,680.00	Section 45 (Tenancy B landlord obligations
Exemplary damages: Section 60AA (Tenancy B unlawful termination	$2,100.00	Section 60AA (Tenancy B unlawful termination
Exemplary damages: Section 13A (Tenancy C statements	$300.00	Section 13A (Tenancy B statements
Exemplary damages: Section 45 (Tenancy C landlord obligations	$4,680.00	Section 45 (Tenancy B landlord obligations
Exemplary damages: Section 19 (Tenancy A bonds	$500.00	Section 19 (Tenancy A bonds
Exemplary damages: Section 19 (Tenancy B Bonds	$500.00	Section 19 (Tenancy A bonds
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$17,658.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$17,658.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5374604 — net $17,658.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Section 13A (Tenancy A statements	$250.00	Section 13A (Tenancy A statements
Exemplary damages: Section 45 (Tenancy A landlord obligations	$4,320.00	Section 45 (Tenancy A landlord obligations
Exemplary damages: Section 13A (Tenancy B statements	$300.00	Section 13A (Tenancy B statements
Exemplary damages: Section 45 (Tenancy B landlord obligations	$4,680.00	Section 45 (Tenancy B landlord obligations
Exemplary damages: Section 60AA (Tenancy B unlawful termination	$2,100.00	Section 60AA (Tenancy B unlawful termination
Exemplary damages: Section 13A (Tenancy C statements	$300.00	Section 13A (Tenancy B statements
Exemplary damages: Section 45 (Tenancy C landlord obligations	$4,680.00	Section 45 (Tenancy B landlord obligations
Exemplary damages: Section 19 (Tenancy A bonds	$500.00	Section 19 (Tenancy A bonds
Exemplary damages: Section 19 (Tenancy B Bonds	$500.00	Section 19 (Tenancy A bonds
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$17,658.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$17,658.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants names only.
Jagdish Prakash must pay The Chef Executive, Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment $17,658.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: Description Tenant Exemplary damages: Section 13A (Tenancy A statements) $250.00 Exemplary damages: Section 19 (Tenancy A bonds)$500.00 Exemplary damages: Section 45 (Tenancy A landlord obligations) $4,320.00 Exemplary damages: Section 13A (Tenancy B statements) $300.00 Exemplary damages: Section 19 (Tenancy B Bonds)$500.00 Exemplary damages: Section 45 (Tenancy B landlord obligations) $4,680.00 Exemplary damages: Section 60AA (Tenancy B unlawful termination) $2,100.00 Exemplary damages: Section 13A (Tenancy C statements) $300.00 Exemplary damages: Section 45 (Tenancy C landlord obligations) $4,680.00 Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $17,658.00

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. The application is filed within the Chief Executive’s tenancy enforcement jurisdiction. The respondent is Jagdish Prakash, a landlord. The Chief Executive’s position is that the Landlord has breached a number of obligations with respect to these tenancy premises. The application relates to three specific tenancies.
A hearing was convened in Palmerston North on 14 and 15 April 2026. The Chief Executive was represented by Ms Siania. There was no appearance by the Landlord or a representative for the Landlord.

BACKGROUND

I begin by noting that the applicant in this case is the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). One of the central roles of MBIE, is to operate Tenancy Services. Within Tenancy Services is the Tenancy Compliance Investigation Team or TCIT. TCIT operates under the delegated authority of the Chief Executive, delegating the Chief Executive’s tenancy enforcement powers. In short, it is the role of TCIT to investigate complaints or on its own motion, tenancies which it considers fall short of the legal requirements.
The premises at the centre of this dispute, are located at 1A and 1B Ranfurly Street, Palmerston North. Both ‘premises’ are located in a single building. It is most likely that this was a single dwelling initially, but at some stage was divided into two separate units – 1A and 1B. The Landlord has described the building as being nearly 100 years old, and based on the photographs, that seems accurate.
The tenants renting unit 1A rent the entire unit, whereas there are two tenants renting 1B which is a room-by-room rental. That is, the tenants have exclusive occupation of their room, and they share the facilities like the kitchen and bathroom etc.
There are three tenancies of relevance in this case, and I will refer to the tenancies or tenants as A, B and C. a. 1A Ranfurly Street – Tenancy A. i. This tenancy commenced on 1 September 2024. The rental was $180.00 per week. The tenancy agreement records the bond as $360.00. b. 1B Ranfurly Street – Tenancy B i. This was a room-by-room tenancy, and this Tenancy commenced on 27 January 2025. The weekly rental was $160. The bond paid was $320.00. c. 1B Ranfurly Street – Tenancy C i. This is also a room-by-room rental. The tenancy commenced on 5 February 2025. The rental was $350.00 per week, and the bond due $1,050.00.
On 12 May 2025, a tenant at 1B Ranfurly Street filed a complaint with Tenancy Services. The tenant reported issues with the Healthy Homes Standards, maintenance not being completed, smoke alarm concerns and that the bond was not lodged. The tenant notes sewerage issues that the Landlord refused to fix. The tenant indicates that they had stopped paying the rent until the Landlord had addressed the issues with the property.
On 11 June 2025, TCIT inspectors Ms O’Keeffe and Ms Patelesio attended the premises for the purpose of an unannounced visit. The Inspectors’ findings are detailed in their reports and statements provided to the Tribunal, and will be discussed further below. But suffice to say, the Inspectors found wide-ranging and significant defects with the premises.
On 12 June 2025, Ms O’Keeffe emailed the Landlord advising that they were conducting an investigation in relation to the premises, and required a range of documentation to be provided.
On 17 June 2025, both TCIT inspectors undertook an announced visit to the premises, that inspection occurring with a Palmerston North City Council inspector, Andrew Moss.
On 27 June 2025, the Landlord provided to Ms O’Keeffe, a comprehensive response to the complaints.
On 7 July 2025, the Landlord provided a further comprehensive letter to the Investigator.
On 4 August 2025, the Palmerston North City Council (Inspector Gary Roberts) issued a dangerous and insanitary building notice to the Landlord. The notice required that the Landlord immediately take action to fence the property so that unauthorised persons could not gain access to the building, otherwise the work detailed in the notice needed to be completed by 4 August 2026. The notice states.: Reason why building is deemed to be insanitary: The structure has rot in the subfloor, bearers and joists, to such an extent as to be in danger of collapse if walked on. Leaks in the roof, walls and windows allow water ingress into the building. The structure is not safe or fit for occupation and is unsafe for any person to enter into.
On 24 October 2025 the Chief Executive filed an application with the Tribunal. The Chief Executive sought the following exemplary damages orders in relation to 1A Ranfurly Street (Tenancy A): a. s13A - failure to produce required statements b. s19 - bond not lodged c. s45(1)(a) - failure to provide property in a reasonable state of cleanliness d. s45(1)(b) - failure to provide and maintain in reasonable repair e. s45(1)(bb) - failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards f. s45(1)(ba) - failure to install working smoke alarms
The Chief Executive sought the following orders in relation to 1B Ranfurly Street: (Tenancy B): a. s13A - failure to produce required statements b. s19 - bond not lodged c. s45(1)(a) - failure to provide property in a reasonable state of cleanliness d. s45(1)(b) - failure to provide and maintain in reasonable repair e. s45(1)(c) - failure to comply with building requirements f. s45(1)(bb) - failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards g. s45(1)(ba) - failure to install working smoke alarms h. s60AA - unlawful termination of tenancy
The Chief Executive sought the following orders in relation to Unit 1B Ranfurly Street (Tenancy C): a. s13A - failure to produce required statements b. s45(1)(a) - failure to provide property in a reasonable state of cleanliness c. s45(1)(b) - failure to provide and maintain in reasonable repair d. s45(1)(c) - failure to comply with building requirements e. s45(1)(bb) - failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards f. s45(1)(ba) - failure to install working smoke alarms

PROCEDURAL NOTE

The Chief Executive filed this application the 24 October 2025.
On 4 February 2026 Tenancy Services set this matter down for a case conference on 5 March 2026, and then a hearing over two days on 14 and 15 April 2026.
On 10 February 2026, the Landlord telephoned Tenancy Services advising over the phone that he was to be travelling overseas for health reasons, and requested that the hearing date be rescheduled, however he confirmed that he would still be available for the case conference on 5 March 2026.
On 17 February 2026 I considered the request to adjourn the hearing. The request was declined. I noted that no dates for return travel has been provided, nor has the Landlord provided medical evidence supporting health- related reasons for not proceeding. However, I confirmed that if that information was provided, I would reconsider the request.
On 18 February 2026, the Landlord emailed the Tribunal, and I will discuss this further below. But in short, Mr Prakash accepted that he had not complied with some of his obligations, and set out a range of personal circumstances for him that went some way to explaining his position. The Landlord also advised that he was going to India in order to receive medical treatment. The Landlord did not ask for an adjournment as such, but recorded: I, therefore, request that my guilty plea may be accepted and punishment may be given. I am already very unhappy and distressed by the developments of the last few months. I am mentally very stressed and not in a position to go through the tribunal hearing please.
For completeness, again no travel or medical evidence was provided.
The case conference scheduled for 5 March 2026, proceeded. The case conference was a video case conference, and details were provided to attend either by clicking in via Teams or telephoning in. The Landlord did not attend the case conference (as noted above, he earlier confirmed that he was able to attend this), but the Chief Executive’s representative did. The case conference was relatively brief, and the outcome was that the hearing would proceed on 14 and 15 April 2026 in Palmerston North.
There was no appearance by the Landlord or a representative at the hearing on 14 April 2026. I was satisfied that the Landlord had been properly notified of the hearing, and in the circumstances, the matter should proceed. The hearing could not be concluded that day, so the second hearing day was required.
At 7:34 pm on 14 April, the Landlord emailed the Tribunal confirming he was in India, and providing a copy of his travel booking, and also some medical documents. I note the Landlord did not request an adjournment, or for any other arrangements to be made so he could be heard; I rather took it that the Landlord was presenting that information as a courtesy to explain why he was not present.
The hearing was reconvened on 15 April 2026, again with only the Chief Executive Officers in attendance. The hearing was concluded that day.

WITNESS EVIDENCE

Several witnesses were called to give evidence for the Chief Executive. I summarise that evidence as follows. Vanessa O’Keeffe
Ms O’Keeffe attended the hearing where she gave evidence under promise. Ms O’Keeffe confirmed that she was the lead investigator from TCIT who was responsible for investigating the complaints received.
Ms O’Keeffe confirmed that a complaint was first received in May 2025.
Early investigations found the property to be on the market for sale.
The premises comprise two units, unit 1A the rear unit, and unit 1B at the front.
A site visit was undertaken on 11 June 2025. At the time a range of defects with the dwelling were seen including in 1A: a. Gaps in the brick chimney b. Holes and cracks to weather boards c. Gutters in disrepair d. Visible waste around drains e. Rotting window frames f. Cracked window g. Downpipe discharging on ground rather than in a drain h. No extractor fan in kitchen i. Broken ceiling panels j. Oven not working k. Defect with kitchen wall l. Gaps around window frames in the kitchen m. Top window in kitchen not closing n. No qualifying heater in main living room o. Broken door handle. p. No bathroom extractor fan q. No openable windows in bathroom r. Sagging ceiling above the shower. s. Strips of plastic perspex on the shower wall t. Unstable flooring in the bathroom u. Unstable toilet v. Duct tape used to repair walls w. Paper covering hoes on wall x. Hole in roofing iron, with light visible through the broken ceiling panel y. Bathroom ceiling cracks z. Large hole in bathroom floor in front of shower, the tenant placed clothing in hole to block it aa. Spray foam used to block holes bb. Significant movement in the living room floor cc. Duct tape or pieces of clothing used to fill gaps between the floor and skirting
Defects with unit 1B, including: a. Laundry ceiling sagging b. Significant movement in the floor c. Planks of wood on floor coving floor holes d. Significant movement on floor e. Smoke alarm not working f. No bathroom extractor fan g. Bathroom floor having significant rot h. Part of wall and floor missing i. Mould under carpet and carpet soggy j. Shower in poor condition k. No kitchen extractor fan l. Oven described as working intermittently only m. Significant movement to hallway floor n. Walls and ceiling dirty o. No qualifying heater in main living room p. Broken window (tenant caused) q. Open fire not blocked off r. Gaps in windows when closed s. No working smoke alarm
Ms O’Keeffe set out the details around her inspections, investigation and engagement with the Landlord which included an interview with the Landlord. This is detailed in her statement on file, so I will not detail it further in this decision.
Ms O’Keeffe notes that the Palmerston North City Council had issued a dangerous and insanitary building notice. [Tenant A]
[Tenant A] was the tenant in unit 1A Ranfurly Street.
The witness attended the hearing by telephone from [Overseas country], to give evidence, which he did under promise.
A statement was on file by way of a pre-formatted set of questions that the investigator asked [Tenant A]. Ms Siania asked questions of the witness at the hearing, and I summarise his evidence as follows. a. He moved into the premises around September 2024 b. A tenancy agreement was given, but the Landlord did not specify how long it was for. No other documents were provided other than the tenancy agreement. c. The rent was $180 per week, and $360 bond was paid. d. The rent was paid by bank transfer. e. At the time he was in need of somewhere to live. When he took the tenancy, it was “filthy, it was smelly”, and in order to make it liveable, they changed the wall paper in the main bedroom, when the Landlord said the Landlord could not do anything to make it more liveable. f. They undertook extensive cleaning. g. The bathroom was the worst room h. When issues were raised with the Landlord, he was not keen to get work done because of the cost, and because the Landlord was seeking to sell the house. i. The Landlord was advised of the problems early in the tenancy. The Landlord had a person come and install a single plank of wood to the bathroom floor. j. There were no smoke alarms when they moved in but they were installed following Ms O’Keeffe’s visit. k. There was no heating provided. The tenants provided their own heater, but later the landlord also provided a used heater. l. The relationship with the Landlord was reasonable, until they realised they were being taken advantage of, such as being expected by the Landlord to mow the lawn on his days off. m. The tenant moved out in September 2025, and would have paid rent for that following week. Ms Patelesio
Ms Patelesio is also an investigator with TCIT, who attended the hearing, giving evidence under promise from a written statement provided in advance, and orally.
Ms Patelesio confirmed that she attended the premises with Ms O’Keeffe as noted above. Ms Patelesio also set out in her brief the defects with the premises she observed.
I will not set out the list of defects that Ms Patelesio stated, but note that the list of defects was consistent with the defects that Ms O’Keeffe has described. Andrew Moss
Mr Moss attended the hearing, where he also gave evidence from a written statement provided in advance.
Mr Moss confirmed he is an Environmental Health Officer with the Palmerston North City Council. His role is to investigate on behalf of the Council any breaches of the Health Act, and he also deals with premises where there are health or insanitary concerns. Mr Moss started with the Council in 2020.
Mr Moss attended the premises for an inspection with Ms O’Keeffe and Ms Patelesio on 17 June 2025.
In relation to 1A Ranfurly, Mr Moss described: a. Damaged and rotting weatherboards b. Gaps in exterior walls and chimney c. Damaged gutters d. Rotten window frames e. Overflow of septic system f. Loose or damaged roofing g. Broken windowpane h. Gaps in ceiling from which daylight could be seen. i. Uneven floor j. Evidence of water ingress k. Floor hole in bathroom l. Repair to shower with material that was not waterproof. m. Gaps in walls and floor. n. Poorly installed sanitary plumbing with a filler used to stop pipes from leaking.
Mr Moss considered that 1A Ranfurly was “not a healthy environment suitable for habitation”.
With respect to 1B Ranfurly Street, Mr Moss advised that it was more difficult to inspect this tenancy because the tenant had not provided access to some rooms, however he described: a. Holes in floor covered with wooden planks or metal. b. Evidence of dampness in the dwelling. c. Shower wall repaired with duct tape. d. Floor felt unstable when moving inside. e. Wall paper sagging f. Broken window g. Water damage to bedroom 1 h. Overflow of gully trap with faecal matter around an area of approximately 1.5 metres, and which appeared to be present for a significant period of time.
Mr Moss considered that the premises at 1B were of greater concern given the water damage and floor holes.
Mr Moss concludes his statement as follows: The condition of both properties falls short of the acceptable standards under Section 120C of the Health Act 1956. The condition of the building does not protect from damp, excessive noise, or heat loss. The disrepair of the guttering, windows, and roofing materials prevents the building from being impervious to weather conditions. Each of these areas allows rain to penetrate the building increasing the damp conditions within. The installation and unknown effectiveness of the plumbing system poses a serious risk to the health of the residents. The inadequate disposal of faecal matter and other human waste is concerning and in my professional opinion is an immediate risk to health. Considering all the issues noted above and observations made. It is my opinion that the building meets the definition of an insanitary building under section 123 of the Building Act 2004. Gary Roberts
Gary Roberts was to attend the hearing on 14 April 2026 to give evidence, but he was unwell, but was agreeable to be telephoned on 15 April 2026. When Mr Roberts was phoned, he clearly sounded very unwell. In the circumstances, Mr Roberts was put on promise, and he confirmed that his full witness statement of 4 March 2026 was correct, as was his substantive report dated July 2025. Given I accept that Mr Roberts was quite unwell, I did not request him to read the evidence out; it was taken as read.
It is the case, that the report provided by Mr Roberts dated 9 July 2025, is very comprehensive. It sets out the history and his impression of the premises, as well as providing photographs of the dwelling. Attached was the insanitary building notice.
The statement provided dated 4 March 2026 summarises the report, were Mr Roberts says:
I am employed as a Building Officer – Compliance with the Palmerston North City Council.
I am a carpenter by trade and have held my current position as a Building Officer with the Council since 2016.
On Tuesday 1 July 2025 at about 1010 am, I visited the property of 1A and 1B Ranfurly Street an undertook a non-invasive inspection of the dwelling.
A summary of what I identified during my inspection included; •Rotting weather boarding •Rotted windowsills and sashes, with mildew in evidence on the internal sashes. •Broken window pain in kitchen with thin cardboard sellotaped to keep in place. •Rotted joists in the sub-floor. •Rotted floorboards, some with makeshift pitching not fixed in place. •Holes in roof roofing iron leaking into ceiling cavity. •Faecal matter and toilet tissue around gully trap under dwelling •Gaps between the floor and external wall framing, allowing cold air to enter the living and sleeping areas, some makeshift attempts to alleviate this in evidence at the internal baseboards. •Gap in rear bedroom outer wall and boundary joist sufficient to be able to pass a hand through to the outside.
I completed a preliminary report on the property as seen.
On 4 August 2025 I issued a notice pursuant to section 124 of the Building Act 2004 deeming the property Dangerous and Insanitary. A copy of the notice was affixed to the property and hard copies posted and emailed to the owner of the property Jagdish Prakash.
The only other matter I asked Mr Roberts, is whether he has been back to the premises. Mr Roberts confirmed he had, and the house has now been removed (there is only a bare section), and because of that, the insanitary building notice has been lifted.

LANDLORDS CASE

As indicated above, there was no appearance by the Landlord or a representative at the hearing. The Landlord has not filed submissions addressing each claim as such, but has provided an explanation of what has gone on in his email from 18 February 2026. I will record the relevant portions here. I have received a big pile of papers from Tenancy services and I have been slowly reading them. I am absolutely horrified and distressed. I [now realise] that most of my actions, though done in good faith and helping intentions are horribly wrong as per tenancy laws. I accept my responsibility for not doing things correctly as per tenancy laws. I am deeply and sincerely sorry for causing any trouble for an individual or to the tenancy services. I didn't mean to do any wrong thing intentionally and I apologize for my past actions done intentionally or unintentionally. I didn't mean to break any law or to hurt anyone knowingly. I really am very sorry and remorseful. I seek forgiveness from all concerned persons and the department. I was never a Landlord in terms of true sense and will never be a Landlord in future also. The house in question has already been demolished. I want to put everything behind and move on in my life, whatever is left.... ... I was not aware of many laws, rules and regulations taking place in this country. After my retirement from my overseas job, I got locked out of New Zealand for a very long time due to Covid crisis and could finally come to New Zealand only in 2022 after many years of absence. But soon after I had to again leave New Zealand for India to sort out some property matters. Thus during the last 30 years, I hardly ever stayed in the country continuously. I was only an occasional visitor not keeping pace with developments in the country.... This house was not in a good condition to live in and my wife had already moved out. On my return to New Zealand, I could see that this house should be demolished so I decided to sell it. During the process some people approached me saying that they were homeless and suggested that they could stay here on rent until such time the house was sold. They also said that we should sign a tenancy agreement so that they could get money from WINZ. I thought that I was being kind to homeless people and allowed them to stay. Rest is history, as they say. I was continuously having problems with them and had no idea what to do about it. Ignorance of laws is no excuse so I am willing to accept any punishment for my foolishness of breaking the law. ... I will accept any jail term given to me as punishment. I am over 81 years old. ... I, therefore, request that my guilty plea may be accepted and punishment may be given. I am already very unhappy and distressed by the developments of the last few months. I am mentally very stressed and not in a position to go through the tribunal hearing please.
I will address the Landlord’s statement that he was not intending to rent the premises. The problem for Mr Prakash, is that this is not a defence. While Mr Prakash may well have had good intentions, once he entered into a tenancy agreement, he became a Landlord, and with that, carried all of the minimum obligations that Landlords have in law. That means that the premises needed to be provided and maintained in a proper state, the HHS needed to be complied with, etc.

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 the 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 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. Exemplary damages
The Tribunal must consider a number of claims 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, 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 District Court has confirmed in the appeal of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583, that for the purpose of exemplary damages for multiple breaches of the same unlawful act provision (for example the multiple claims under section 45), that the Tribunal must order exemplary damages as a global order, not for each individual breach.
For example, section 45 of the RTA relates to a Landlord’s obligations. That includes obligations for maintenance and smoke alarms, and say for example the Landlord breached both obligations. The effect of the Hillis decision is that the Tribunal could order exemplary damages to one maximum amount for both breaches of section 45, not two maximum amounts for each individual breach.
Because of that, when I consider these section 45 claims below, I will consider the quantum of exemplary damages together.

ANALYSIS

I will now consider the specific claims advanced by the Chief Executive. There are three separate tenancies, meaning that orders can be made individually in relation to each. There is of course overlap in the claims, and I will set out the relevant law that applies only once, given the law is the same for the overlapping claims. For some claims the evidence overlaps, and I will take the same approach.
While the Landlord has accepted he has not met the obligations on him, I have still proceeded on the basis that it is the Chief Executive who must prove the claims. 1A Ranfurly Street - Tenant A s13A - failure to provide required statements
The Chief Executive’s position is that the Landlord failed to provide a healthy homes and insulation statement for Tenant A’s tenancy. Analysis
Section 13A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 sets out the requirements for tenancy agreements.
Subsection 1A relates to a need to provide an insulation statement; that provision holds: (1A) The Landlord must include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the Landlord, that provides the following information to the tenant (subject to subsections (1B) and (1C)): (a) whether or not there is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, any insulation installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises: (b) details of the location, type, and condition of all insulation that is, as at the date of the tenancy agreement, installed in connection with any ceilings, floors, or walls that are at the premises:
Subsection (1CA) relates to a requirement to provide a healthy homes statement, and holds that: (1CA) The Landlord must also include in the tenancy agreement a statement, made and signed by the Landlord,— (a) that, on and after the commencement of the tenancy, the Landlord will comply with the healthy homes standards as required by section 45(1)(bb) or 66I(1)(bb) (as the case may be); and (b) including the information (if any) prescribed by regulations under section 138B(5).
The relevant regulations are the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. Regulation 33 sets out the information that must be provided in a tenancy agreement as being the information set out between regulations 34 to 39. I will not detail that here, but it requires very specific information about heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage.
Section 13A(1F) confirms that an unlawful act arises if a Landlord fails to comply with section 13A(1CA).
In this case, I accept that the tenancy agreements do not contain a healthy homes statement or an insulation statement. Therefore, the Landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Taking into consideration the section 109 factors, I find that exempt damages should be ordered.
I have no reason to believe that the Landlord’s decisions around what went in the tenancy agreement were not intentional. The Landlord has used the preformatted Tenancy Services tenancy agreement, which if all pages were used, included the necessary statements. The effect for the tenants is that they were not aware of the situation regarding healthy homes compliance, nor insulation in the premises. The effect was most likely quite pronounced for these tenants, because there is compelling evidence that these premises would have been very cold and draughty. There is a strong interest for tenants to be well aware of the situation with the dwelling they are renting, and that translates into a public Interest because it contributes to tenancies being warm, dry, and healthy. It would be just to make an order based on what I have seen.
The maximum level of exemplary damages for a breach of section 13(1F) is $750.00, I consider an order at 1/3 of the maximum would be reasonable, taking the circumstances into account. That is ordered. s19 - bond not lodged
The Chief Executive submits that the tenants paid a bond to the Landlord, but the Landlord failed to lodge this bond with the Bond Centre Analysis
The tenancy agreement for Tenant A records that the bond was $360.00. The Landlord has provided financial records which show a payment of $360.00 was received at the start of the tenancy.
The Chief Executive claims exemplary damages on the basis that the Landlord has breached section 19 of the RTA, for failing to lodge the bond. Section 19 of the RTA sets out the “Duties of Landlord on receipt of bond”, and confirms that the Landlord: shall, within 23 working days after the payment is made, forward the amount received to the chief executive, together with a statement of particulars in the approved form signed by the Landlord and the tenant.
For the purposes of this provision, the bond is considered to be lodged with the Chief Executive, by lodging the bond with the Bond Centre.
Section 19(2) of the RTA confirms that failure to lodge the bond following the section 19 requirements is declared to be an unlawful Act, and therefore could be the subject of an order of exemplary damages.
I consider that exemplary damages should be ordered in this case. It is very likely that the Landlord would have been aware that there were obligations with lodging the bond, it is well known. Furthermore, in this case the Landlord has used the preformatted Tenancy Services tenancy agreement, which also references the need to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. 1 I find therefore, that it is likely the breach is intentional. The effect for the tenant is that the bond has not been kept in trust in the Bond Centre, and ultimately, the bond is the tenant’s money. There are very strong interests for tenants, landlords, and the public generally, that they bond system be strong and robust. That requires landlords to lodge the bond as they are required to do. In this case I consider it would be just to make an order.
The level of exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond is $1,500. Again I consider an order at 1/3 of the maximum it would be reasonable. the rental paid for these premises is on the lower end of the scale, and while the Landlord indicates having withheld bond previously, I am not aware of any 1 The tenancy agreement states “Bond must be lodged with Tenancy Services within 23 working days of being paid”. earlier orders from the Tribunal regarding the breach. The order is therefore $500. s45(1)(a) - failure to provide property in a reasonable state of cleanliness
The Chief Executives position is that the premises were provided unclean. Reference is made to the report of Mr Moss as well as the investigators, as well as the evidence from the tenants who rented tenancy 1A, that the kitchen was dirty, and this was raised with the Landlord at the time, who advised he did not want to spend money on the tenancy. Analysis
The Landlord’s obligations are set out in section 45 of the RTA. That includes in subsection 1(a) the requirement that the Landlord: Provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
If the landlord breaches their obligations under section 45(1) that is deemed an unlawful act.
Taking into consideration the photographs provided, I find that the premises are far from reasonably clean. I am not persuaded that the photographs demonstrate a level of cleanliness that would have only occurred during this tenancy. The state of the premises is very poor, and reflects a long period of neglect. There are also the photographs that are on the file, from when the landlord was selling the property on the market. Those also show premises that were unclean.
In short, I do not accept that the Landlord would have provided these premises for rent at the start of the tenancy, in a reasonably clean state. The Landlord has therefore committed an unlawful act.
It is very likely that the Landlord was well aware of the state of the premises when it was rented to Tenant A, and it is also likely the Landlord would have been aware that he had obligations to provide the Tenancy meeting a certain standard. I find therefore that the breach is likely to be intentional. The effect for the tenants is that they have lived in unclean premises. There are compelling interests for tenants to have premises provided that meet the reasonably clean state, at the minimum it is a hygienic expectation. There are strong public interests for tenancies to be provided meeting the minimum standard at least. It would be just to make an order from what I’ve seen.
I will address the quantum of all the section 45 orders below. s45(1)(b) - failure to provide and maintain in reasonable repair
The Chief Executive’s position is that the premises had significant defects such as rotten windows. The evidence is that there was rot or similar to the kitchen wall that has been covered with a gold coloured film. There are issues with walls, and holes in the floor, and the toilet is unstable. The tenants raised this with the Landlord. Analysis
As noted above, the Landlord’s responsibilities are set out in section 45 of the RTA, and as far as maintenance to the premises is concerned, subsection 1(b) requires that the Landlord: provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes
Where this provision uses the word ‘provide’ that refers to the state of the tenancy on day one, and the requirement to maintain the tenancy in a reasonable state of repair, is an obligation that endures the course of the tenancy.
The above requirement is not an absolute standard; regard must still be had for the age and character of the premises, and the period over which it would likely be available for residential usage. In this case the dwelling is old, and taking into consideration the defects that have been identified with it, such as those for which it was found to be an insanitary building, those defects are very significant. It was plainly a serious consideration as to whether it would be more cost-effective to have the premises demolished, and the Landlord indicates that had been contemplated. In any event, what that means is that the expectation around maintenance and the state of repair to the premises would not be at the same level that would be expected of a new or near-new property.
Nevertheless, this dwelling is dilapidated, it is not habitable, it is neither safe nor healthy for people to live in. That finding should come as no surprise to the Landlord, given the approach taken by the council to deem the building insanitary.
But even taking into account the expectation that the standard of repair would be on the lower end, the Landlord’s failure to provide and maintain this tenancy is extreme.
The best evidence setting out the state of the tenancy is the photographs provided; those speak for themselves. I will include some of those photographs to provide an indication as to the state of the premises.
The exterior of the premises was rundown. There were large gaps and holes that would allow in water and draughts:
Interior windows were in poor condition:
There were multiple holes in the floor. The following picture shows a hole in the bathroom floor of one unit, with a rotten joist, which has almost completely rotted through (the picture was taken from inside the house):
One hole in a bathroom was filled with a rag to keep out the draught and rodents:
Sunlight was visible through a gap in the ceiling in Tenancy A, demonstrating a hole in the roofing iron.
Rags and duct tap were used to seal gaps and to act as a draught stop:
Roofing iron was not adequately affixed:
Non-tradesman-like techniques were used to seal gaps around the tenancy (weatherproofing):
Interior maintenance was not addressed:
While the above photographs are of units 1A and 1B, they are indicative of the overall standard of the premises. Further, where there are significant defects involving one unit, that will have an impact on the neighbouring unit, such as allowing moisture into the premises as a whole, it would be artificial to view the defects in relation to only the individual unit.
I have no reservation in concluding that the Landlord has not maintained the premises in a reasonable state of repair. s45(1)(bb) - failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards
The Chief Executive submits that there are breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards. In this case: a. No heating was provided b. No extractor fan in the kitchen or bathroom c. There were gaps in the ceiling that would allow draughts d. There was no underfloor moisture barrier and other drainage issues Analysis
The Chief Executive has claimed that the Landlord has breached his obligations as it relates to the Healthy Homes Standards.
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (“HHS”) provides for a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies as it relates to heating, ventilation, insulation, draught stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.
Section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires compliance with the HHS. A breach of this obligation is deemed to be an unlawful act, for which exemplary damages can be ordered.
The heating standard requires Landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The Insulation standard requires that the premises have qualifying insulation in the ceiling cavity, and under the floor if the floor is a suspended floor (like in this tenancy). To be considered ‘qualifying insulation’ the insulation must meet a minimum R value. The insulation must also be in a reasonable condition.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
In this case I find: a. The heating standards is breached, as there was no qualifying heating provided. b. The ventilation is breached because there was no kitchen or bathroom extractor fan. c. The draught-stopping has been breached, given the extensive holes and gaps in the joinery. d. The moisture ingress and drainage is breached because the gutters were in poor condition and in places had holes, the downpipe did not drain to an appropriate source, and there was no ground moisture barrier (or evidence from a qualified person that this could not be installed. s45(1)(ba) - failure to install working smoke alarms
It was submitted that there were no smoke alarms. The tenant’s evidence is that it was only when TCIT became involved that the Landlord then installed smoke alarms. Further, the Landlord indicated during his interview that he knew smoke alarms were compulsory, but it was overlooked. The photographs show an empty smoke alarm cradle. Ms O’Keeffe’s evidence was that there were no working smoke alarms in the premises. Analysis
The Landlord appears to accept there were no smoke alarms. In his 7 July 2025 communication to the Investigator, he says. there were alarms much earlier in both 1a and1b that we did not feel the necessity as we were careful and carefully managing to use the electric equipment and electric oven. In 1a, three smoke alarms were fitted recently.
And further, when Mr Prakash was interviewed by the investigators on 9 July 2025, when the investigators asked whether he knew that smoke alarms were required, Mr Prakash responded “very much”. At the interview, Mr Prakash also confirmed that he did not make sure they were working smoke alarms before the tendencies commenced. That was for both 1A and 1B.
Section 45(1)(ba) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that Landlords comply with all requirements in relation to smoke alarms made under section 138A.
The relevant regulations are the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. Those regulations require Landlords to have qualifying smoke alarms installed and operational.
Regulation 5 requires that there be at least 1 qualifying smoke alarm installed: a. Within a sleeping space (bedroom); or b. Within 3 metres of the entrance to a sleeping space; and c. On each story or level of the premises (which is not relevant in this case of a single-level dwelling).
I am satisfied that the Landlord has breached his obligations in relation to smoke alarms. That is an unlawful act.
Taking the section 109 factors into account, exemplary damages must be ordered. It is likely the Landlord would have been aware of his obligations around smoke alarms, certainly he has not proven otherwise. There was a serious risk to the tenants, in fact all of the occupants of the building. Smoke alarms save lives. There are overwhelming interests for tenants, landlords, and the public generally that tenancies have working smoke alarms. It would be just to make an order of exemplary damages. Conclusion on exemplary damages under section 45
As noted under the heading relevant law, because the unlawful acts claimed under section 45, fall within the same unlawful act for exemplary damages purposes, the breaches must be considered globally. Here there are four breaches of the following section 45 Landlord obligations: a. Failure to provide premises reasonably clean. b. Failure to provide and maintain the premises. c. Failure to comply with the HHS d. Failure to provide smoke alarms
There are four breaches in this case. The breaches are not simply technical or minor transgressions; they are serious breaches. They relate to the premises being healthy and safe to live in, and in fact, I do not consider the premises to be safe or healthy for those who reside in them. That argues for a higher percentage of exemplary damages being awarded. Taking into account the significance of these breaches, and the fact that there are four of them, I have determined that exemplary damages at 60% of the maximum must be ordered, and therefore order exemplary damages of $4,320.00 for Tenant A. 1B Ranfurly Street - Tenant B
The Chief Executive seeks the following orders in relation to unit 1B Ranfurly (Tenant B): s13A - failure to provide required statements
The Chief Executive’s position is that the Landlord has failed to provide a tenancy agreement containing an insurance statement, healthy homes statement or an insulation statement. Analysis
I have sent out above the relevant law that applies as far as content for tenancy agreement is concerned under section 13A. In this case, the Chief Executive again claims there is a missing healthy homes statement, and insulation statement, but also a missing insurance statement.
Insurance statements fall under section 13A subsection 2: (2) The Landlord must include in the tenancy agreement the following information about insurance of the premises: (a) if the premises are not insured, a statement that they are not insured; and (b) if the premises are insured, a statement— (i) setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability; and (ii) informing the tenant that a copy of the policy is available to the tenant on request (except that the statement need not inform the tenant of this if the Landlord has already provided to the tenant a copy of the policy in accordance with section 45(2B) or 66J(5)).
Based on the tenancy agreements that the Landlord has provided, I agree that they are missing the healthy homes statement, the insulation statement, and the insurance statement.
Again I have no reason to conclude that the Landlord’s breach is not intentional. Tenant B would have been unaware of the situation with respect to the healthy home standards, insulation, and insurance for these premises. As noted above, this is a cold and damp tenancy; that information should have been available to the tenant. There is a strong interest for tenants to be provided with this sort of information, as well as the public generally. It would be just to make an order.
I have determined that an order of $300 would be reasonable. That is slightly higher than the order for Tenant A, but takes into account that there are three breaches. s19 - bond not lodged
The Chief Executive submits that the bond was not lodged for Tenant B, but the Landlord’s evidence is that the bond was received. Analysis
The evidence supports that the Landlord did receive the bond for Tenant B. In a letter from the Landlord to Ms O’Keeffe dated 7 July 2025, the Landlord refers to receiving two weeks of bond at the start of the tenancy, as well as the initial rent payment from WINZ. The Landlord says “I kept always the bond money with me from the [tenants] in the past and returned when they left. There was no any resistance from anyone in the past.”
Ms Siania also refers to the earlier order from the Tribunal where the Landlord sought termination of the tenancy, and in that order is recorded that the Landlord held a bond of $320.00.
The evidence certainly does point to the Landlord having received a bond for Tenant B and not lodging it with the Bond Centre.
I have set out the relevant law above in relation to failing to lodge the bond following receipt of that money from the tenant, so I will not set it out again.
For similar reasons as above, I find that exemplary damages should be ordered. Again, I consider it more likely than not that the Landlord intentionally withheld the bond, knowing it needed to be lodged with the Bond Centre. The effect for this tenant is also that the bond was not kept secure, and again there are significant interests for tenants, landlords, and the public generally that bonds are lodged. It would be just to make this order.
I have also determined that exemplary damages at 1/3 of the maximum should be ordered, taking into consideration the rental and the circumstances. s45(1)(a) - failure to provide property in a reasonable state of cleanliness
It was submitted that the report from Mr Moss refers to mould in the shower cubicle. Further, reference is made to photographs in the listing for sale, which are dated December 2024, which show what appears to be stains and marks on the ceiling and walls Analysis
I have set out the relevant law that applies for providing tenancies reasonably clean in my discussion for Tenancy A.
For those same reasons, I find that exemplary damages should be ordered. This tenancy commenced in late January 2025, and there is no realistic prospect that it could be said that the state of these premises is solely the result of Tenant B’s failure to clean his unit. The Landlord has committed an lawful act, and exemplary damages should be awarded. s45(1)(b) - failure to provide and maintain in reasonable repair
The Chief Executive submits that there are widespread defects with the premises, where there are holes and gaps around the property to floors and exterior weather boards, and broadly the Landlord has not met his repair and maintenance obligations. Analysis
For the same reasons as set out for Tenancy A, I find that exemplary damages should be ordered, taking into consideration the section 109 factors. s45(1)(c) - failure to comply with building requirements
The Chief Executive submits that there has been a failure to comply with the legal obligations, such as failing to meet the requirements under the Health Act as indicated by the insanitary building notice. Further, the Landlord failed to ensure the premises were free from dampness, and the premises were structurally unsound. Analysis
I agree that the Landlord has breached multiple legal obligations in relation this building, given the defects and the result of those defects, which for example, cause the premises to be damp.
For the same reasons as discussed with Tenant A, I find that exemplary damages should be ordered. s45(1)(bb) - failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards
The Chief Executive submits that the Landlord has breached his obligations to comply with the HHS in that: a. There are no extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom. b. Failure to comply with draught-stopping obligations with window frames and holes in the structure. c. Failure to provide heating. d. Failure to comply with drainage and moisture-stopping requirements Analysis
Again, the circumstances in relation to this Tenancy are not materially different to Tenant A as far as the breach of the HHS is concerned. For the same reason as set out in my discussion for Tenancy A, I find that exemplary damages should be ordered.
For the avoidance of doubt, I accept that the Chief Executive has proven the breaches of the four Healthy Homes Standards noted above (heating, ventilation, draught stopping, and drainage and moisture ingress) s45(1)(ba) - failure to install working smoke alarms
The Chief Executive submits that the Landlord has failed to provide smoke alarms for this tenancy. Again, reference is made to the assessment and report from the investigators who found no working smoke alarm in Tenancy 1B. Further reference is made to the interview where the Landlord confirmed knowing about smoke alarms and not providing them. Analysis
As recorded above, the Landlord appears to accept there were no working smoke alarms in the Tenancy.
For exactly the same reasons as set out in my discussion for Tenancy A, I find that exemplary damages should be ordered for this tenancy also, Conclusion on exemplary damages under section 45
Here there are five breaches of the following section 45 landlord obligations: a. Failure to provide premises reasonably clean. b. Failure to provide and maintain the premises. c. Failure to comply with building requirements. d. Failure to comply with the HHS. e. Failure to provide smoke alarms.
In this case there are five breaches of section 45. The significance of these breaches is also significant, in fact more significant than for Tenancy A, as there is an additional breach.
Overall, I consider an order at 65% of the maximum would be indicated, and that is ordered. I therefore order exemplary damages for these five section 45 breaches to the sum of $4,680.00 s60AA - unlawful termination of tenancy
The Chief Executive seeks exemplary damages for an unlawful termination of Tenant B’s tenancy.
On 27 March 2025 the Landlord wrote to Tenant B stating: You are hereby served one month notice to evacuate this property due to your unacceptable behaviour as reported in writing by Neighbours and also another tenant ...
The Chief Executive submits that Tenant B was on a periodic tenancy, and there is no ability within the RTA to terminate a periodic tenancy, as the Landlord has done. If the Landlord considered that a termination should occur because of the tenant’s behaviour, then the Landlord remedy was to do that via the Tenancy Tribunal, and seek a formal order. Alternatively, the Landlord could have given a 90-day termination notice, but did not do so. Analysis
I agree with the position taken by the Chief Executive that there is no basis for a Landlord in a periodic tenancy to give a one-month notice terminating a tenancy as the Landlord has done in this case. The Landlord could have given a 90-day termination notice, or alternatively would need to apply to the Tenancy Tribunal for orders. The Landlord did not do either.
Section 60AA confirms that: A Landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate to the tenant or apply or purport to apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy knowing that they are not entitled, under this Act, to give the notice or to make the application.
In this case, I have no reason to believe that the Landlord would not have known that he was under various strict obligations as a landlord, and I have no reason to believe that the Landlord would have been unaware that he could not give a notice such as he has done here. I am satisfied on the available evidence that it is more likely than not that the Landlord has breached section 60AA that is, he gave a termination notice, knowing that he was not entitled to give that notice.
The giving of an unlawful termination notice is deemed to be an unlawful act, meaning exemplary damages could be ordered. Taking into account the section 109 factors, I find that exemplary damages should be ordered. I have no reason to believe that the decisions made by the Landlord were not intentional, in the sense that he did not know that a termination notice could not have been given as occurred. The effect for the tenant was significant, because the tenancy, on the face of It, would come to an end within one month of receiving the notice. There are very strong interests for tenants, landlords, and the public generally that landlords do not unlawfully terminate tenancies. The effect on tenants is very significant because they lose their home for an unlawful reason. I consider it would be just to make an order.
The maximum level of exemplary damages for a breach of section 60AA is $6,500. In this case I consider an order at 1/3 of the maximum would be reasonable, and that is ordered. I have taken into account that the rental for the premises is at the lower end of the scale, and I have no evidence before me to show that the Landlord has acted in a similarly unlawful way in the past.
I conclude by noting that although the Tenancy in this case was later terminated by order of the Tribunal because of rent arrears, that would not change the outcome; the notice was still unlawful. 1B Ranfurly Tenant C
The Chief Executive seeks the following orders in relation to Unit 1B Ranfurly Street (Tenant C): s13A - failure to produce required statements
The Chief Executive’s position is that the Landlord has failed to provide a tenancy agreement containing an insurance statement, a healthy homes statement or an insulation statement. Analysis
I have considered the tenancy agreement provided by the Landlord, and agree that it is missing the three statements, that is, there is no healthy home statement, insulation statement, or insurance statement.
The circumstances are identical to those considered for Tenant B. I will not repeat those here again, but for those same reasons, order $300 exemplary damages for this unlawful act. s45(1)(a) - failure to provide property in a reasonable state of cleanliness
Again the Chief Executive submits that the premises were not provided reasonably clean. Again, reference is made to the evidence from the sales listing, with reference to the current photographs. Analysis
I have set out the relevant law that applies for providing tenancies reasonably clean, above in my discussion for Tenancy A.
For those same reasons, I find that exemplary damages should be ordered for providing this tenancy unclean at the start of the tenancy. This tenancy commenced in early February 2025, and there is again no realistic prospect that it could be said that the state of these premises is solely the result of Tenant C’s failure to clean her unit. The Landlord has committed an lawful act, and exemplary damages should be awarded. s45(1)(b) - failure to provide and maintain in reasonable repair
The Chief Executive refers to the same arguments and evidence as for Tenancy B. Analysis
The Landlord’s failure to provide and maintain these premises is no different to that discussed for Tenancy A and B. Again, the Landlord’s breach is egregious, and the same section 109 analysis applies in this case also. Exemplary damages must be ordered. s45(1)(c) - failure to comply with building requirements
Again the Chief Executive refers to the same arguments and evidence referred to for the Tenancy B claim around building requirement breaches. Analysis
I adopt the same analysis and acceptance of the evidence as discussed above. The outcome is no different than for Tenancy A and B. s45(1)(bb) - failure to comply with Healthy Homes Standards
Again the Chief Executive refers to the same arguments and evidence referred to for the Tenancy B claim, submitting that the premises are not HHS compliant. Analysis
I am satisfied, the Landlord has breached his obligations in relation to this tenancy as far as the HHS is concerned, and for the same reasons again as set out above for Tenancy A and B, I find the Landlord has acted unlawfully and exemplary damages must be ordered. s45(1)(ba) - failure to install working smoke alarms
Again the Chief Executive refers to the same arguments and evidence referred to for the Tenancy B claim, as smoke alarms are needed for the whole of the tenancy. Analysis
For the same reasons mentioned above, the Landlord appears to accept there were no working smoke alarms in the premises.
The unlawful act has been established, and for the same reasons as discussed above, consideration of the section 109 factors leads to a conclusion that exemplary damages must be ordered for this Tenancy also. Conclusion on exemplary damages under section 45
Here there are five breaches of the following section 45 landlord obligations: a. Failure to provide premises reasonably clean. b. Failure to provide and maintain the premises. c. Failure to comply with building requirements d. Failure to comply with the HHS. e. Failure to provide smoke alarms.
In this case there are five breaches of section 45. The significance of these breaches are also significant, in fact more significant than for Tenancy A as there is an additional breach.
Overall, I consider an order at 65% of the maximum would be indicated, and that is ordered. I therefore order exemplary damages for these five section 45 breaches to the sum of $4,680.00.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal orders name suppression to apply for all tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5374604 — Exemplary damages at Multiple Tenancies

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5374604 — Exemplary damages at Multiple Tenancies

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

PROCEDURAL NOTE

WITNESS EVIDENCE

LANDLORDS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

PROCEDURAL NOTE

WITNESS EVIDENCE

LANDLORDS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions