What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5383581 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 5383581?

Smoke Alarms: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $725.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5383581?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5383581?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13337790-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5383581 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 5383581?

Smoke Alarms: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $725.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5383581?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5383581?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13337790-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

31 Snell Street, Morrinsville, Morrinsville 3300 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5383581 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5383581 — net $2,703.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Fail to comply smoke alarm regulations	$1,000.00	Fail to comply smoke alarm regulations
Exemplary damages: Fail to prove HHS compliance statement	$350.00	Fail to prove HHS compliance statement
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$725.00	Failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory notice 13/10/2025 and 02 March 2026	$600.00	Retaliatory notice 13/10/2025 and 02 March 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,703.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,703.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5383581 — net $2,703.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Fail to comply smoke alarm regulations	$1,000.00	Fail to comply smoke alarm regulations
Exemplary damages: Fail to prove HHS compliance statement	$350.00	Fail to prove HHS compliance statement
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond	$725.00	Failure to lodge bond
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory notice 13/10/2025 and 02 March 2026	$600.00	Retaliatory notice 13/10/2025 and 02 March 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,703.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,703.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Virshudh Gulati must pay [The tenant/s] $2,703.00 immediately, as set out in the table below.
The notice issued on 02 March 2026 to terminate the tenancy on 31 May 2026 is invalid and of no effect.
The landlord must lodge the bond of $2,200.00 with the Bond Centre within 7 working days of this order. If the bond is not lodged within this period, the tenant may bring another claim that the landlord has failed to lodge the bond.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenancy began on 25 September 2025 and is a periodic tenancy. On 7 November 2025, the tenant filed a claim with the Tribunal. The claim was referred to mediation on 12 January 2026.
The application names Mr Virshudh Gulati and [the landlord’s representative] as joint landlords. At the mediation, [the landlord’s representative] appeared as agent for Mr Virshudh Gulati. They are siblings. The tenancy agreement is between the tenant and Mr Virshudh Gulati only.
[The landlord’s representative] has provided written authority from Mr Virshudh Gulati to act as his agent in these proceedings. [The landlord’s representative] has also acted as the property manager since 13 October 2025.
I have amended the parties to remove [the landlord’s representative] as a landlord and have proceeded on the basis that he is acting as the landlord’s agent.
In reaching my decision I have considered all evidence placed before the Tribunal, even if I do not specifically refer to it. Claims
The tenant claims that the landlord: i. Failed to comply with the Smoke Alarm Regulations. ii. Failed to provide a Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) compliance statement with the tenancy agreement. iii. Failed to lodge the bond. iv. Breached their obligations regarding the electricity supply. v. Attempted unlawful installation / failed to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety. vi. Issued retaliatory notices.
The tenant is seeking exemplary damages and a work order. Smoke Alarms / Healthy Homes Statement (HHS) / Bond
On 12 January 2026, a mediator declined to deal with the tenants claims and they were referred to the Tribunal. A copy of an unsealed order has been provided in which the landlord makes undertakings concerning the installation of smoke alarms, providing an HHS statement, and lodging the bond by 18 January 2026. However, the order is unsealed and not binding and is not enforceable.
The tenant claims there were no smoke alarms at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord does not dispute the claim. The smoke alarms were installed on 14 January 2026.
The tenant stated that the tenancy agreement did not include an HHS compliance statement. The landlord does not dispute the claim. For this tenancy, the HHS standards applied at the commencement of the tenancy. On 26 January 2026, the landlord commissioned an HHS report, a copy of which was provided to the tenant on or about 14 February 2026. The report states that the property does not comply with the drainage (no moisture barrier, guttering and downpipes in poor condition), ventilation (no external kitchen fan), draft stopping (windows) standards.
The landlord stated that a moisture barrier and kitchen extractor fan were installed on 18 March 2026. The landlord also stated that draft stopping was completed on that date, and produced an email from a contractor briefly stating work had been completed and photographs of the completed work.
The tenant disputed that the draft stopping work had been completed stating that daylight could still be seen through rotten windowsills. There is no dispute that the guttering and downpipes have not been addressed. As at the date of hearing, it does not appear that the property is HHS compliant. The landlord confirmed that the bond had been received. To date, the bond has still not been lodged with the Bond Centre. Law
Under section 45(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act), and the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016, the landlord must provide and maintain working smoke alarms. A failure to comply with the Smoke Alarm Regulations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded.
Under section 13A of the Act a tenancy agreement must include a statement of compliance with the HHS. A failure to comply with section 13A is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $750.00 may be awarded.
Section 19(1) of the Act states that upon receipt of the bond (whether the amount is for the whole or part of the bond), the landlord must lodge it with the Bond Centre within 23 working days. A failure to comply with section 19(1) is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00 may be awarded. Analysis and decision
There is no dispute, and I am satisfied, that the landlord has breached their obligations concerning smoke alarms, HHS compliance statement, and the bond, and has committed unlawful acts.
Dealing with the claim for exemplary damages. These 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(3) of the Act.
In awarding exemplary damages, the Tribunal must consider: i. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. ii. The effect of the unlawful act. iii. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. iv. The public interest; and v. Whether it is just to make the award
If there are multiple breaches of an obligation (multiple instances of unlawful acts) that could otherwise individually be the subject of an exemplary damages order, only one order of exemplary damages may be made for a breach of a particular section.
This approach was confirmed by the District Court in Manage My Rental v Baxter [2015] NZDC 12011, and MBIE v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583, which held that the correct approach is a global approach, meaning one order to a single maximum, irrespective of the number of breaches of a section.
For health and safety reasons, fire detection and the ability to escape from fire are clearly in the interests of both the parties and the public. The obligation to provide smoke alarms in rental properties has been widely publicised. After being advised of the issue in the tenant’s application on 7 November 2025, the landlord should have addressed it immediately, especially since smoke alarms should have been installed at the start of the tenancy.
An HHS statement informs tenants about the condition of the property and whether it meets the HHS. This allows tenants to make informed decisions and ensures they are aware of their rights regarding the health and safety of the property. In this case, the property still does not comply with all of the HHS.
To date, the bond has still not been lodged with the Bond Centre. The bond is not the landlord’s and remains the tenant’s subject to any agreement by the parties to release it at the conclusion of the tenancy, or by order of the Tribunal. Landlords are obliged to make themselves familiar with the provisions of the Act. Failure to lodge the bond deprives the tenant of the protection of the bond process.
The property manager suggested that the landlord may have been unaware of these provisions. In my view, ignorance of the law relating to residential tenancies may explain the breach but does not excuse the breach. I also note that in correspondence sent to the tenant on 13 October 2025, the landlord refers to legislation they claim supports their position on the electricity use issue. This suggests the landlord is aware of the provisions in the Act. The property manager states that once they became aware of the issues, they took steps to address them. However, as stated regarding the smoke alarms, any delay after being advised on 7 November 2025 was unacceptable.
Taking these factors and the other considerations in section 109(3) into account, I award the tenant exemplary damages of $1,000.00 for failing to comply with the Smoke alarm regulations, $350.00 for failing to provide an HHS compliance statement with the tenancy agreement, and $750.00 for failing to lodge the bond within the required time frame.
Concerning the bond of $2,200.00, I order that it be lodged with the Bond Centre within 7 working days of this order. If it is not the tenant may make another claim that the landlord has failed to lodge the bond as ordered by the Tribunal. Electricity and attempted unlawful installation.
The property has three-bedrooms, kitchen, bathroom and toilet, and a dining / lounge. At the rear of the property, but connected to it, there is a self-contained one-bedroom unit. The unit and the back yard, along with the garage are excluded from the tenancy.
The tenant stated that when they moved in, an electrician was installing a check meter. They state the landlord did not advise of anything unusual about the electricity, and they assumed that both properties had separate supplies.
The tenant stated that their electricity is on a prepay system which allows them to monitor usage. They stated that shortly after the commencement of the tenancy, they noticed that their usage was unusually high. They made enquiries with their provider, who suggested conducting tests, one of which involved turning off the power.
When the tenant turned off the power, it also turned off the power at the other unit. The tenant then contacted the landlord, who advised that the electricity account would remain in the tenants, that the tenant should read the check meter and advise the landlord, and that the tenant would then be reimbursed.
The tenant has produced an email from the landlord, dated 13 October 2025, setting out this proposal. The tenant stated they advised the landlord that this arrangement was not feasible, noting that the hot water cylinder for both properties was located in the tenant’s property and connected to the tenant’s electricity supply.
On 13 October 2025, the landlord issued the tenant with a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy on 16 January 2026. About an hour later, the property manager became involved. The landlord offered to reduce the rent, reimburse the tenant, and “retract” the 90-day notice. The tenant accepted the offer.
On 07 November 2025, the tenant filed their claim, seeking work orders to separate the power and the hot water supply from the main house. No evidence has been provided as to how this might be achieved. However, since the filing of the application, the need to do so has become moot.
On 12 February 2026, the Council issued the landlord with an unsanitary building notice. The notice states that the unit, used as a self-contained residence, had only been permitted as a bedroom with an ensuite. The notice required the landlord to remove the kitchen and associated plumbing, and that access was permitted only for remedial work.
This effectively ended the occupation of the unit, which remains uninhabited.
The property manager stated that, upon becoming aware of the notice, they took steps to address the situation. The property manager stated that the landlord intends to redevelop the property, which is addressed later.
One issue identified in the HHS report was that the kitchen required an externally vented rangehood. The tenant states that on 1 March 2025, a contractor arrived at the property to install one. The tenant asked the contractor if they were qualified to do the work. The contractor disclosed that they did not have a licence. The tenant then called the property manager, who was surprised and apologised, and advised that a project manager had been instructed to arrange installation. The contractor left. It appears that the rangehood was later installed by someone suitably qualified.
The landlord accepted that this had occurred. Law
Under section 39 of the Act, the tenant is responsible for outgoings that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises, such as electricity, gas, telephone, and water charges (water to the premises on the basis of consumption.
Section 45(1)(c) of the Act requires landlords to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety that apply to the premises. This means landlords must ensure the property meets all relevant building codes, health regulations, and safety standards throughout the tenancy. Analysis and decision
The landlord’s proposal was, in effect, an attempt to enter into an agreement whereby the tenant would accept responsibility for usage not exclusively attributable to their occupation. Although they would be reimbursed. The proposal did not address the shared hot water system, which was connected to the tenant’s supply, and have resulted in the tenant being responsible for costs not properly theirs.
However, based on the available evidence, I am unable to determine whether this has amounted to a breach. In any event, the unit is no longer habitable and cannot be re-tenanted pending redevelopment. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether separating the electricity and hot water is feasible, short of redevelopment, or what this work would require. Accordingly, no orders are made.
Regarding the rangehood, while no evidence has been produced as to what specific qualifications are required to install a rangehood, it is likely that the contractor who attended on 01 March 2025 was not appropriately qualified. However, in this case the work was not completed at that time and was subsequently completed by a qualified person. I am not satisfied there has been a breach. Retaliatory notices
The tenant claims that the notice issued 13 October 2025, on the same day they raised concerns about the feasibility of the landlord’s electricity proposal, was retaliatory and issued either wholly or partly because they had raised a matter which concerned their rights under the Act.
The property manager had no explanation why the landlord had issued the notice but stressed that, as soon as they became aware of it, they acted to retract the notice.
The tenant stated that on 02 March 2026, the day after they questioned the qualifications of the contractor, the landlord issued a second 90 day notice to terminate the tenancy on 31 May 2026. The tenant claims that this notice was retaliatory, issued the day after they had raised their concerns.
The tenant stated, that upon receiving the notice they called the property manager who advised that substantial work was required on the property and that it would not be practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation.
The landlord produced a document described as a “Resource Consent Set” dated 12 February 2026, showing proposed plans for the property. These appear to relate to obtaining consent for a self-contained unit. The landlord stated that the plans involve extensive works on both dwellings including a installing a fire wall. The landlord initially stated that the plan had been filed with Council, but later stated that no application had yet been made.
The tenant stated that, in the week prior to the hearing, they had received a call from the property manager who stated that if the tenant withdrew their application that they would repair the property within 48 hours, and that they could stay. The tenant rejected the offer. The tenant states that this indicates that the landlord does not really intend redeveloping the property.
The property manager accepted that the offer had been made on a without prejudice. The landlord stated that the tenant had made social media posts criticising the landlord and an entity both the landlord and property manager are associated with. The landlord stated that the offer was made in an attempt to resolve the situation.
The tenant accepted that they had posted negative comments to social media. Law
Under section 51(1)(a) of the Act, the landlord may give a 90 day notice to terminate a periodic tenancy. No reason is required.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove more likely than not that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) of the Act.
If the Tribunal finds the notice was given in retaliation for the tenant exercising their rights under the Act, the notice can be set aside and deemed of no effect.
For a notice to be deemed to be of no effect the application must have been made within 28 working days of the issue of the notice.
The Tribunal can also award exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00.
In the case of Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua MA 244/88, 03 November 1988, the Court held that a notice of termination given for genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory. Analysis and decision
The application filed on 07 November 2025, did not include the second notice. This was added to the application by the tenant on 02 March 2026. However, the application was not amended.
I am satisfied that the termination notice issued by the landlord on 13 October 2025 was retaliatory. It was issued in response to the tenant rejecting the landlord’s proposed electricity arrangements. The timing of the notice immediately after the complaint is significant. In the absence of any credible explanation by the landlord, I am satisfied more likely than not that the notice was wholly motivated by the tenant’s complaint.
In determining whether the second notice was also retaliatory the Tribunal will consider the circumstances including those leading up to the notice, at the material time it was issued, and what occurred afterward.
This was the second notice issued. As with the first, it followed the day after the tenant raised a concern, in this instance regarding the qualifications of the contractor, and the tenant’s health and safety. The timing strongly suggests that the notice was motivated at least in part by the tenant’s actions.
The landlord relies on the proposed redevelopment, no resource consent application had been filed at the time the notice was issued. Although the landlord is not required to provide a reason, initially they stated that they had made the application, then clarifying that they had not weakens the credibility of this explanation.
In this case, I am satisfied that both notices are retaliatory issued at least in part in response to the tenant exercising their rights.
The notice issued 13 October 2025 was retracted. The notice issued on 02 March 2026 is of no effect.
Turning to the matter of exemplary damages. The landlord has issued both notices with the intention of terminating the tenancy. The first notice was withdrawn immediately after it was issued. The issuance of both notices has caused the tenant stress and anxiety. Issuing retaliatory notices discourages tenants from asserting their rights and can lead to unfair evictions or other adverse consequences. It is the public interest that tenants feel secure in exercising their legal rights without fear of reprisal from their landlord.
Taking the factors in section 109(3) into account I award the tenant exemplary damages of $600.00. Costs
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties seek name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that their name or identifying particulars of that party not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression. The landlord has not been substantially successful, and no suppression orders are made. The Tribunal will however order the suppression of the property manager [the landlord’s representative].

Tenancy Tribunal case 5383581 — Exemplary damages at 31 Snell Street, Morrinsville, Morrinsville 3300

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5383581 — Exemplary damages at 31 Snell Street, Morrinsville, Morrinsville 3300

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions