What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4834839 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for compensation for damage to window is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4834839?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4834839?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4834839?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10218587-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4834839 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for compensation for damage to window is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4834839?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4834839?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4834839?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10218587-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4834839 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The landlord advised today that the rent arrears have been paid and did not seek an order for this.

The landlord sought an order for compensation in the sum of $500.00 being the insurance excess for a window repair.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: the outer glass of a double-glazed ranch slider window on the balcony of the apartment shattered. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.

The landlord provided evidence by way of a photo of the shattered glass and highlighted a crack in one corner where it appears there may have been impact to the glass.

The landlord also produced a copy of a message thread they stated was from the building manager where the messages state “Hi is it damage caused by the tenant?” and the reply “I’m not pretty sure to be honest. However, they said they we’re asleep because they had just had a baby, and suddenly, this happened. You can see from the photo where it started”.

The landlord also provided an email from the glass repair company which confirms the outside of the double glass pane was shattered but does not give any cause.

The tenant attended today and advised that he has lived at the premises since 2022 and had regular housing inspections. He gave evidence that he was sleeping on the couch in the lounge due to a new baby and awoke to a sound and then heard a cracking sound. He looked outside and saw that the outer window was cracking. He called the building manager and reported this. He was afraid that someone had thrown something as they live close to the motorway. He stated that he did not see anything outside but did not want to go out there to check. The tenant stated that the glass contractor told him that vibration and temperature can cause glass to shatter.

Having considered the evidence of both parties I find that there is insufficient evidence of the cause of the glass damage to find on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible for the damage.

Therefore, the claim is dismissed. Suppression/filing fee

As the applicant has not been successful, reimbursement of the filing fee is not ordered.

The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The applicant applied for suppression but has not been successful today. At the hearing the tenant, who has been successful, sought suppression of all party details. Having considered the factors in this case the Tribunal grants suppression as sought.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The landlord advised today that the rent arrears have been paid and did not seek an order for this.

The landlord sought an order for compensation in the sum of $500.00 being the insurance excess for a window repair.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: the outer glass of a double-glazed ranch slider window on the balcony of the apartment shattered. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.

The landlord provided evidence by way of a photo of the shattered glass and highlighted a crack in one corner where it appears there may have been impact to the glass.

The landlord also provided an email from the glass repair company which confirms the outside of the double glass pane was shattered but does not give any cause.

Therefore, the claim is dismissed. Suppression/filing fee

As the applicant has not been successful, reimbursement of the filing fee is not ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4834839 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4834839 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions