What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5241112 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 5241112?

Compensation: Gates Left Open: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Herbicide Bottle: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Poisoned Plants: $177.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5241112?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5241112?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13399197-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5241112 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 5241112?

Compensation: Gates Left Open: $200.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Herbicide Bottle: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Poisoned Plants: $177.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5241112?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5241112?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13399197-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5241112 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5241112 — net $1,304.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Section 23(1)(b) of the Act	$500.00	Section 23(1)(b) of the Act
Compensation: Gates left open	$200.00	Gates left open
Compensation: Poisoned plants	$177.00	Poisoned plants
Compensation: Herbicide bottle	$400.00	Herbicide bottle
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,304.00
Bond	$150.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,304.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5241112 — net $1,304.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Section 23(1)(b) of the Act	$500.00	Section 23(1)(b) of the Act
Compensation: Gates left open	$200.00	Gates left open
Compensation: Poisoned plants	$177.00	Poisoned plants
Compensation: Herbicide bottle	$400.00	Herbicide bottle
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,304.00
Bond	$150.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,304.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $150.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Kevin Deane Real Estate Limited As Agent For Samuel & Melissa Priest must pay [The tenant/s] $1,304.00 immediately, as calculated in the table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

On 3 May 2025, the tenant filed an application seeking compensation and exemplary damages following the end of the tenancy.
The case was heard over two days. Mr Morton, Property Manager, appeared for the landlords and Kevin Dean Real Estate Ltd (KDRE), on the first hearing day. Ms Kewish, Property Manager, appeared for the landlords and KDRE on both hearing days.
The tenant appeared and was represented by [The tenant’s representative].
During the hearing, the tenant withdrew their claim for exemplary damages for a breach of section 45(2B) 7 (2D) of the Act. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
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 applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Exemplary damages
The Tribunal must consider a claim for exemplary damages.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Act.
Section 109 of the Act 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. Background of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 14 January 2022 and was periodic.
On 1 May 2024, the tenant sent a text message to the landlord giving 28 days’ notice terminating the tenancy. The tenant had secured another rental property (“house two”) through KDRE.
The tenant was due to gain access to house two on 25 May 2024, just prior to the tenancy officially commencing on 28 May 2024.
On 23 May 2024, the tenant was advised by KDRE that she was unable to access house two and that her move in date had been postponed by that landlord.
KDRE advised the tenant that they had negotiated with her current landlord to allow her to remain in the [Tenancy address suppressed] property, provided the rent was paid, until such time as house two became available.
On 28 May 2024 KDRE paid for the tenant to move into motel accommodation.
On 29 May 2024 KDRE offered to assist with moving the tenant’s belonging from [Tenancy address suppressed] to house two.
On 30 May 2024 KDRE staff helped move the tenants possessions out of the [Tenancy address suppressed] property.
On 5 June 2024, the landlord sent a text message to the tenant advising that the property had not be returned in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and offered her the opportunity to return to the property to undertake additional cleaning or pay for KDRE’s cleaners to complete the work.
On 6 June 2024 KDRE arranged for the property to be professionally cleaned. Did the landlord require rent to be paid before the expiry for which rent had already been paid?
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has required rent to be paid before the rent already paid had been used up.
A landlord must not require the payment of any rent before the expiry of the period for which rent has been paid already. Section 23(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. Section 23(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement records that: a. Rent was $475.00. b. The rent frequency was weekly. c. The first payment for rent was due 14 January 2022. d. Bond of $1900.00 was required to be paid at the commencement of the tenancy. e. Rent in advance of $475.00 was required. f. The total move in costs were $2,375.00
The tenant said that she was required by the landlord to pay the first weeks rent of $475.00 on 22 December 2021. Th tenant then said she was then required to set up an automatic payment for her rent commencing 11 January 2022. The tenant said she did not challenge the landlord’s demand for two weeks rent in advance because she did not want to start the tenancy “on a bad note”. The tenant said that at no time during the tenancy was she given the option to use the use the rent credit or have the money refunded to her.
During the hearing, the landlord acknowledged an error was made at the commencement of the tenancy in requiring the tenant to pay two weeks rent in advance. Analysis and decision
The rent records for the property reflect that the landlord received two rent payments on 22 December 2021 and 11 January 2022. Only one weeks rent in advance was required to be paid under the terms of the tenancy agreement. I consider that landlord has committed an unlawful act under section 23 of the Act when they required an additional weeks rent in advance to be paid before the tenancy commenced. This caused stress and inconvenience to the tenant who was is a single mother on a limited income.
Having regards to the factors set out in section 109(3) if the Act I award exemplary damages of $500.00 against the landlord. Breach of contract
The tenant seeks compensation for breach of contract after KDRE negotiated with her landlord to extend the end date of her tenancy after she gave 28 days’ notice to terminate. The tenant’s position is that this action effectively revoked her termination notice.
The tenant said that at the time she was informed her move in date for house two had been postponed by that landlord, she was also told that KDRE had successfully negotiated for her to remain in the [Tenancy address suppressed] property.
The tenant told the Tribunal she found this to be distressing for the following reasons: a. She had been “counting down the days” before she could leave this property as she was the respondent to a protection order and no longer felt safe in her home. b. She had packed up her home. c. She had arranged with family and a small circle of trusted friends to help her shift the weekend of 25 – 26 May 2024 out of [Tenancy address suppressed] and into house two. d. She had arranged for friends to help her clean the [Tenancy address suppressed] property. e. She had arranged for the carpets to be professionally cleaned on 27 May 2024, prior to the end of the tenancy on 29 May 2024.
As a result, the tenant said her plans were significantly impacted as her friends and family were no longer available to assist with the move and her cleaning schedule was disrupted.
The landlord accepts negotiating on behalf of the tenant to allow her to remain in the [Tenancy address suppressed] property. The landlord said they did this after the landlord for house two deferred access to that property and they did not want to see the tenant or her children homeless.
The landlord said that they acted with the best of intentions and did not know the tenant felt vulnerable in her home. However, when they became aware of the tenant’s situation paid for her to more into temporary motel accommodation from 25 May 2024. Analysis and decision
The tenant seeks compensation claiming the landlord breached the terms of their tenancy agreement by cancelling her 28 days’ notice and requiring her to remain in the property after she had terminated the tenancy.
Section 51 of the Act states that a tenant may give notice terminating a periodic tenancy by giving at least 21 days’ notice. In this case the tenant gave the landlord 28 days’ notice terminating the tenancy effective 29 May 2024. The termination notice was lawful and valid.
In this case KDRE negotiated with the [Tenancy address suppressed] landlord to allow the tenant to remain in the property following termination of that tenancy. KDRE undertook this negotiation after the landlord of house two breached the terms of that tenancy agreement by postponing the date on which the tenant could move in. KDRE told the Tribunal they undertook these negotiations because they did not want to see the tenant or her children homeless.
The Tribunal is satisfied that there was no agency agreement between KDRE and the tenant when KDRE negotiate an extension of the tenancy at [Tenancy address suppressed].
The term ‘agent’ is defined in section 2 of the Act as: any person who is a landlord or a tenant, means an agent of that person in that person’s capacity as a landlord or tenant; and include an employee of that person in that person’s capacity as landlord or tenant
An agent can only act on behalf of another party with that parties agreement and consent. In this case these was no agency agreement between the tenant and KDRE when negotiations were undertaken to allow her to remain in the [Tenancy address suppressed] property following the end of the tenancy.
Consequently, the Tribunal finds there was no obligation on the tenant to remain in the property and she was within her right to leave as planned. Nor does the Tribunal find that tenant was compelled or required by the landlord to remain in the property. The landlord had merely agreed she could remain at [Tenancy address suppressed], on the condition rent was paid, until such time as she could move into house two.
Any claims for compensation arising out of a delay in moving from the [Tenancy address suppressed] property into house two should have been made against the landlord of house two. The [Tenancy address suppressed] landlord did not prevent the tenant from leaving that property and her vacate date from that property was delayed by the actions of the landlord for house two.
The Tribunal understands the tenant filed a claim against the landlord of house two for various breaches, and a confidential settlement was reached between the parties 1 .
The claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord unlawful enter the property?

[The tenant/s] seeks compensation and exemplary damages after staff from KDRE opened the door to the property on the day they came to premises to help her move out.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2)of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant said that after the landlord for house two postponed her move in date, the trusted friends and family members she had arranged to help her move out of [Tenancy address suppressed] were no longer available to assist. The tenant said that the situation she was placed in was very distressing and she was close to having to ask a local community group for assistance when KDRE offered to help her with the move. The tenant said that she was very reluctant to accept KDRE’s offer of assistance and unsuccessfully tried to negotiate for them to pay for a professional house mover.
On the day of the move the tenant said arrived at the property and discovered the front door had been unlocked and she was told that a staff member of KDRE had looked inside the property but not entered it. The tenant said that she found 1 [Citation details redacted] this very distressing as her “anxiety levels were up” and she was feeling overwhelmed. The tenant said she did not want KDRE entering the property without her being present as her cat was locked inside and she hadn’t met all of the KDRE staff members who were helping with the move.
KDRE told the Tribunal they arrived at the property at 9am to discover the tenant was not present and only a set of bunk beds and a washing machine had been left outside in preparation for the move. KDRE accepted the door was opened, but said the property was not entered the property, as their intention was to gage how much was left to pack in preparation for the move. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the parties and considering the Tribunal is not satisfied the landlord has breached their obligations under section 48 of the Act because: a. The tenant had, albeit reluctantly, consented to the KDRE assisting her to remove her possessions from the [Tenancy address suppressed] property. b. The tenant was aware KDRE staff were coming to the property on 30 May 2024 and the parties had agreed to meet there at 9am. c. The tenant had consented to KDRE staff entering the property on 30 May 2024 for the for the purposes of assisting with the move and they were at the property for that reasons alone.
On that basis the tenant’s claim for unlawful entry is dismissed.
[The tenant’s representative] on behalf of the tenant argued KDRE behaved inappropriately when they offered to help move the tenant’s belongings and should have engaged a professional movers. This, she argued, would have ensured the tenants possessions were correctly packed and safely moved and ensured there was appropriate in transit insurance cover in the event of a breakage.
The Tribunal finds that any claim for compensation for moving costs should have been made against the landlord of house two after they postponed the tenants entry date for the new property. I do not find the [Tenancy address suppressed] landlord liable for any of the tenant’s moving costs as they were not responsible for the delay in the tenant vacating that property. The tenant was within her right to leave [Tenancy address suppressed] and continue with her pre-arranged plans. The tenant was prevented from doing so after the landlord for house two postponed her move in date.
The tenant brought proceedings against that landlord for house two which resulted in a confidential settlement being reached. The tenant should have made a claim for moving costs as a part of those proceedings. Did the landlord fail to recognise [The tenant’s representative] as an agent of the tenant?
The tenant seeks compensation from landlord after failing to recognise [The tenant’s representative] as her agent resulting in cleaning and gardening cost being deducted from the bond.
The tenant provided evidence which shows she had appointed [The tenant’s representative] as her advocate in respect of this tenancy on 27 May 2024.
On 5 June 2024, the Property Manager contacted the tenant via text advising the property had not been returned in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The text message offers the tenant the opportunity to return to the property to undertake the necessary cleaning or to pay for an additional four hours of cleaning. The text also advised the tenant the gardens required weeding.
On 6 June 2024, the tenant responded to the Property Manager reminding them that all correspondence related to the tenancy needed to go through her advocate.
[The tenant’s representative] said had she been contacted by KDRE about the cleaning and gardening costs she would have: a. disputed the property had not been returned in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. b. Disputed the amount of time taken to clean the property; and c. Explained the why soft weeds had been left on the lawn - which the lawn mowing contractor normally mowed over. Analysis and decisions
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant appointed [The tenant’s representative] as her agent within the meaning of section 2 of the Act.
Having reviewed the correspondence between the parties the Tribunal is satisfied the landlord continued to contact the tenant in breach of her instructions to discuss all aspects of the tenancy with her agent. This resulted in a cleaning and gardening costs being withheld from the bond. The Tribunal does not accept KDRE’s evidence the tenant only instructed one member of their team to contact [The tenant’s representative] in respect of matters relating to the tenancy.
The Tribunal understands the money held in dispute over gardening costs has already been refunded to the tenant. The Tribunal refunds all remaining money held in dispute by the Bond Centre to the tenant. No further compensation is ordered.

Did the landlord fail to provide an itemised account for bond deductions?

The tenant made a claim for compensation and exemplary damages for failure to provide an itemised account for bond deductions under section 44A of the Act.
Section 44A of the Act relates to the recovery of expenses incurred by the landlord in respect of subletting or assignment of the tenancy or where the tenant surrenders or delivers up vacant possession of the property with the landlord’s written consent.
Section 44A of the Act does not require the landlord to provide an itemised account for bond deductions and the claim is dismissed. Did the landlord’s lawn mowing contractor interfere with the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the property?
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord’s lawn mowing contractor has interfered with their peace, comfort, and privacy.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant said that at the commencement of the tenancy she was told the landlord required their lawn mowing contractor to mow the lawns and the cost was included in the rent.
The tenant said that under the terms of the tenancy agreement she was responsible for the lawns and clause 20 records: “Lawns and Gardens – The Tenant agrees to keep the Property including lawns and gardens in a reasonably clean and tidy condition free from rubbish and papers. The Tenant also agrees not to damage or remove any tree, shrub or bush from the Property. The Tenant agrees to keep the lawns and gardens weeded and in a generally tidy condition. The Tenant shall be responsible for the removal of garden waste.”
The tenant said that in March 2023 [Lawnmowing contractor] started to mow the lawns which resulted in the following issues: a. The lawns were mown at a time suitable to the contractor and did not comply with the mowing schedule. b. The tenant took time off work to be present for the lawn mow but as the contractor was unreliable and failed to attend on the appointed day and time. c. The contractor failed to make themselves known when they arrived at the property, was noisy and frightening her young child. d. The contractor was rude and made unnecessary comments. e. The contractor failed to shut the pool and side gates which was a safety issue for the tenants young family.
The tenant said she asked KDRE to cancel the lawn mowing contractor as she would responsibility for cutting the grass. However, she was told this was not possible as the landlord required the contractor to mow the lawn as a condition of the tenancy.
KDRE provided copies of the text conversation between themselves and the tenant over the lawn mowing contractor. a. Sometime between 12 January and 7 March 2023 the tenant complained the lawns were not being properly maintained and said she could do them as long as she was not paying for the cost of the mow in her rent. b. On 8 March 20223 KDRE advised the tenant that the cost of the lawn mowing was not included in the rent but was part of the tenancy package. The landlord also advised that a new lawn mowing contractor would be attending that day and asked for the toys on the section to be picked up. c. On 14 March 2023 KDRE asked the tenant to specify the day she would like the lawns mowed on a fortnightly basis. The tenant replied, specifying she would prefer Friday and would make sure “things pucked[sic] up each Friday”. d. On 12 March 2024, the tenant texted KDRE saying: “I have told [Lawnmowing contractor] my lawn mower lady that I’ll do my own lawns from her on out. Reason is I’m sick of her disrespectfulness. Constantly I’m asking for gates to b[sic] shut including pool gate. She’s taken pictures of property without my permission sending them to Melissa. Damages my gardens that I’ve spent time n[sic] effort doing. Leaving her round up weed killer out that my son had picked up. Luckily he didn’t get sick. I’m constantly hitting her up due to her disrespectfulness. She’s killed all my potato plants I had grown. So I’ve told her I’ll do my own lawns.” e. KDRE responded to say they were sorry the tenant had a run in with the lawn mowing contractor but the contractor will continue mow the lawns as required by the landlord. They apologised to the tenant for feeling like her privacy had been invaded indicating any pictures taken were to show the landlord work the property required. KDRE also suggested the tenant communicate with the contractor over the use of sprays.
KDRE accepted the tenancy agreement did not make the attendance of a lawn mowing contractor at the property a condition of the tenancy but reiterated it was the landlord’s preference as advised at the commencement of the tenancy. Analysis and decision
A breach of section 38 of the Act, for which exemplary damages may be awarded required conduct that amount to harassment of the tenant.
The Tribunal acknowledges that the tenancy agreement did not specify, as a condition of the contract, that the landlord required their contactor to maintain the lawns. However, having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the actions of the lawn mowing contractor amounted to harassment of the tenant. This is because the lawn mowing contractor was at the property for the purposes of cutting the grass and completing garden maintenance. There was no corroborative evidence provided showing the contractor was frequently late, unreliable, or failed to keep to the agreed lawn mowing schedule. There was no evidence provided as to the comments uttered by the lawn mowing contractor to the tenant or the volume at which they were spoken.
However, the Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence before it that the contractor failed to properly close the side gates amounting to a breach of the tenants peace, comfort, and privacy. This action did not appear to be intentional, but due to inattention and oversight. The Tribunal declines to award compensation for failure of the contractor to close the pool gate. This is because, under local authority bylaws, pool gates are required to be self-closing. By their own evidence, the tenant’s pool gate was not self-closing and therefore failed to comply with those regulations.
The issue of the gates was first raised on 12 March 2024. There is no evidence provided showing how many times the gates were left open. On that basis the Tribunal has determined that it is appropriate to award the tenant $200.00 compensation for the breach. Did the landlord’s contractor dispose of the tenant’s plants?
[The tenant/s] seeks compensation and exemplary damages after landlord’s lawn mowing contractor poisoned her plants, killing a crop of potatoes she was growing on feed her family and a canna lily plant she was given that held sentimental value.
The tenant also seeks compensation after her child picked up the discarded open bottle of herbicide, which had a paint brush protruding from the top. Saying the contractor was negligent in failing to dispose of chemical waste appropriately.
KDRE stated that they were not made aware of the issue at the time and did not directly employ the lawn mowing contractor. Analysis and decision
The tenant made this claim for compensation and exemplary damages under section 33 of the Act which states a landlord must not seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods, except where they are disposed of under sections 62 to 62C of the Act.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 33(2) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
Section 33 of the Act only applies after the tenancy has terminated and the tenant has vacated the property, but left goods behind. It does not apply to situations where the tenancy is ongoing and the tenant’s possessions are still lawfully in the premises. On that basis the Tribunal declines to consider a claim for exemplary damages under this section.
However, after hearing from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the landlord’s lawn mowing contactor, acting as an agent of the landlord, poisoned the tenant’s potato plants and canna lily and an award for compensation is appropriate. The act of poisoning the healthy plants interfered with the tenants reasonable peace, comfort and privacy and amount to a breach of her right to quiet enjoyment of the garden.
The tenant estimated the replacement cost of the canna lily was approximately $42.00 – $72.00. The tenant was unable to quantify the loss for the potatoes. The Tribunal has determined the cost of a bag of seed potatoes ranges from $4.50 for a small bag to $20.00 for a three-kilogram bag. On that basis the Tribunal awards $177.00 compensation, being $57.00 for the canna lily, $20.00 for seed potatoes and $100.00 for the loss of potato crop.
The Tribunal is also satisfied the landlord’s contractor failed to properly dispose of the herbicide container causing the tenant significant distress upon discovering her child with it. The contractors actions amount to a breach of the tenants right to peace, comfort and privacy. The Tribunal orders $400.00 compensation to reflect the seriousness of the breach and the associated mental anguish.

Did the landlord breach their health and safety obligations?

The tenant seeks compensation after the landlord’s lawn mowing contractor: a. left an empty but open bottle of herbicide in the carport with paint brush placed inside it which her young child picked up. b. Left the gates open to the property which prosed risk to the safety of her young children. c. Spray her potato plants with herbicide poisoning the food she was growing for her family.
Section 45(1)(c) of the Act requires landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of building, health, and safety under any enforcement so far as they apply to the premises.
The tenant said that rental houses are business and landlord and property managers are aware they have a duty of care under health and safety regulations as persons conducting a business unit to ensure their staff, contractors and clients are protected from harm by using appropriate safety protocols.
The tenant said that there general guidelines available (but not provide to the Tribunal) through the Regional Council about the use of herbicide and pesticide sprays.
The tenant provided a copy of any event report from the lawn mowing contractor dated 5 March 2024 which specifies: “(empty[sic]/almost) bottle/container of glsophate[sic] was left at [Tenancy address suppressed]” “No injury was reported” “possibility of causing damage if handled badly by residence[sic] of property, was disposed of safety[sic] by resident[sic] to the best of my knowledge”
The tenant said she was not provided with a copy of the report detailing the poisoning of her plants despite it being requested.
The tenant said that she found dealing with the lawn mowing contractor stressful and after discovering they had been using herbicide at the property became concerned about what else had been effected.
KDRE stated: a. They were not made aware of the lawn mower spray for weeds until after the event. b. The contractor painting the leaves of the potato plant suggests they were trying not to overspray other plants. c. They were not made aware of any other issues until the tenant notified them by text as discussed at paragraph [76(e)] above. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the parties the Tribunal is not satisfied based on the evidence provided that the lawn mowing contractor has breached section 45(1)(c) of the Act.
That is because the tenant has failed to provide the Tribunal with a copy of the relevant sections of any act or bylaw detailing how chemicals such as herbicides or pesticides are to be handled, stored, maintained, or disposed of. No expect evidence was called in respect of this matter. The claim is dismissed.
However, even if I am wrong on this point, and the landlord has breached section 45(1)(c), no further compensation would have been ordered in addition to the amounts already specified in paragraphs [82] – [83] and [91] –[92] above. Compensation for emotional harm
The tenant seeks compensation for emotional harm suffered as a result of the landlord’s breaches of the Act.
Under section 77(2)(n) of the Act the Tribunal has a broad discretion to award compensation and may award compensation for emotional harm where a party has suffered actual emotional distress.
Compensation for emotional harm is not punitive but intended to recognise and compensate for the distress or loss of amenity suffered.
In this case the Tribunal declines to award compensation for emotional harm. While the Tribunal acknowledges the tenant was distressed by various matters arising out of this tenancy, the compensation ordered reflects the emotional harm suffered. In addition a number of the claims made were as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement is respect of house two. It would be inappropriate for this landlord to pay emotional harm compensation for the distress cause by the knock on effect of the house two breaches. The claim for emotional harm compensation is dismissed. Other matters
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Section 95A of the Act provided that on the application of a party who has been whole or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars 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

Tenancy Tribunal case 5241112 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5241112 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord unlawful enter the property?

Did the landlord fail to provide an itemised account for bond deductions?

Did the landlord breach their health and safety obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord unlawful enter the property?

Did the landlord fail to provide an itemised account for bond deductions?

Did the landlord breach their health and safety obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions