A Canterbury landlord has been ordered to pay $33,000 in pecuniary penalties for numerous breaches of tenancy law, including the failure to clear “rotting” industrial rubbish from one of his properties despite multiple warnings.
Murray Lawrence Hill, who owns over a dozen properties across Canterbury, appeared before a Tenancy Tribunal adjudicator after the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s Tenancy Compliance and Investigations Team investigated a complaint from a member of the public in December 2023.
It is the first time the tribunal had ordered a landlord to pay pecuniary penalties.
The complainant said one of Hill’s boarding houses in Lyttleton was in a “serious state of disrepair”, with rubbish “rotting” outside.
Tenants were described as “vulnerable” and feared they would be evicted if they complained.
MBIE’s investigators had previously dealt with Hill regarding this property and others, issuing warnings to him and providing him with education and guidance on tenancy rules.
After visiting the property, investigators decided the “most appropriate” course of action was to apply to the Tenancy Tribunal, as the property remained non-compliant despite two prior warnings and guidance.
Investigators identified a “range of issues” and suggested measures Hill could take to achieve compliance.
At a case conference in March of this year, Hill said he had completed some of the work. He was asked by the adjudicator to provide proof of this work, including photo evidence, within seven days, but failed to do so.
A further visit to the site found that “some” of the fixes had been completed, but “significant work” remained to be done.
Industrial rubbish outside the house was still there; the hallway ceiling just outside the lounge was rotting and leaking water; the stairway wall was yet to be repaired; parts of the guttering were broken and leaking; and a smoke alarm was missing outside a bedroom.
The tribunal found that Hill failed to keep his property in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair, failed to comply with the healthy homes standards for ventilation, draught stopping, and moisture ingress and drainage, and failed to comply with smoke alarm regulations.
“Despite receiving multiple warnings over a number of years, he failed to take meaningful steps to address these concerns until 2024/2025,” the adjudicator said.
“His prolonged inaction over a four-year period demonstrates a deliberate and intentional disregard for his obligations.”
Hill was ordered to pay $33,000 in pecuniary penalties. He was also ordered to remove the rubbish, repair holes in the ceiling and roof, install glass panels in boarded-up windows, install mechanical ventilation in all bathrooms, and clean the kitchen and bathrooms to an acceptable standard.
According to a Stuff story in May, Hill is a landlord known for not turning people away, regardless of their criminal or mental health issues.
He owns 17 properties, which were bought cheaply after the 2011 Christchurch earthquake – renting them out as is, where is. In 2015 the Tenancy Protection Association called for his rentals to be shut down.
The adjudicator said those living at the boarding house were among Hill’s “most vulnerable tenants” and said his failure to maintain the property had a “direct and harmful impact on them”.
“They continued to pay rent despite living in substandard conditions.”
TCIT National Manager Brett Wilson said Hill was an “experienced landlord” who had regular interactions with MBIE, Fire and Emergency New Zealand and the Christchurch City Council and was aware of his obligations.
“Where possible, TCIT will try to work with a landlord to achieve compliance and allow tenants to remain in their homes, but where a landlord is not willing to engage with us, then we will not hesitate to take further action up to and including an application to the Tenancy Tribunal,” Wilson said.
“While this complaint did not come from a tenant, boarding house compliance remains a priority for TCIT, and we still felt that action needed to be taken. It’s important that landlords are held accountable for their actions, even if tenants are unwilling to come forward due to the fear of losing their tenancies.”
