What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5329379 about?

The tribunal order states: Gerri Cruz to pay Tailored Management Limited $322.86 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 5329379?

Compensation: $1,577.14 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,900.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5329379?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5329379?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12820067-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5329379 about?

The tribunal order states: Gerri Cruz to pay Tailored Management Limited $322.86 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 5329379?

Compensation: $1,577.14 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,900.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5329379?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5329379?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12820067-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 103, 15 Rendall Place, Eden Terrace, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5329379 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5329379 — net $322.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Window repairs	$1,900.00		Window repairs
Deck compensation		$1,577.14	Deck compensation
Total award	$1,900.00	$1,577.14
Net award	$322.86
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$322.86

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5329379 — net $322.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Window repairs	$1,900.00		Window repairs
Deck compensation		$1,577.14	Deck compensation
Total award	$1,900.00	$1,577.14
Net award	$322.86
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$322.86

Order

Gerri Cruz to pay Tailored Management Limited $322.86 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (BN-00060182) immediately apportioned as follows: Tailored Management Limited: $322.86 Gerri Cruz: $1,677.14

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and tenant. The landlord seeks compensation for a broken window, the tenant seeks compensation for loss of a deck and what she reports to be a leaky building.
Both parties appeared at the hearing today. The landlord appeared in person, the tenant by telephone at her request.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records the landlord as “Managemint”, and tenant as Gerri Cruz.
There is a dispute between the parties about whether this is a periodic or fixed-term tenancy. The landlord believes it was a fixed-term tenancy from 20 March 2025, to 19 March 2026, but the tenant believes it was periodic.
On 14 August 2025, the tenant emailed the landlord, advising that she would be “giving 21 days notice from today”, and that the last date of the tenancy would be 4 September 2025.
However the landlord has accepted the tenant’s request to end the tenancy on 4 September 2025, and has not claimed rent beyond that date. That being the case, I will not consider that aspect of the dispute further, because the matter is now moot.
But what is relevant are two matters.
Firstly, during the tenancy, a large glass window next to a door shattered. The landlord seeks the replacement costs for that.
Secondly, early on in the tenancy, the Body Corporate undertook work which involved the replacement of the deck. During those works the tenant did not have use of the deck, so she seeks compensation for that, and also given that she considers the landlord should have advised her of this before the tenancy started.

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 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.
It is the applicant 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.

ANALYSIS

There are two claims to be considered, and I will consider those in turn. Landlords claim – Window damage
The landlord seeks costs to repair the window that was broken at the tenancy, which the tenant confirmed she had broken. The landlord seeks the replacement cost of $1,900.00 (inclusive of GST). At the hearing, the landlord provided a copy of the invoice from Auckland Glass. The landlord states that the windows are not covered by the Body Corporates insurance or the landlord’s insurance, so they seek the full replacement cost.
The tenant says in response that the window was broken when she was coming in from being on the deck, when she tripped on the metal ledge at the foot of the sliding door, and she grabbed onto the door frame, and at that moment the glass shattered. The tenant disputes that her actions had caused the glass to break. Analysis
Based on the photograph provided and the evidence on file, there is an aluminium sliding door that goes onto the deck. On the side of the sliding door, where the door latch would be, is a large double-glazed glass window. I note, for example, one of the quotations records the window as being 1.9 by 1.1 m in dimension, it is a sizeable window.
There is no dispute between the parties, that the window broke during the tenancy. In an email from 25 March 2025, the tenant explained: What happened is I was putting the washing out on the deck and one of the woman upstairs had a loud coughing fit when I was going back in which I tripped on the ledge of the door frame and the window shattered.
On 8 August 2025, the tenant emailed the landlord explaining her position in relation to the broken window as follows: The shattered window. a) I have always asserted from the beginning my actions of being frightened by the resident directly above on level 3 and then tripping on the lip of the door which is only half a centimeter high at most were not sufficient to shatter a window. B) The decks on level 1 have been uplifted and there is major rotting underneath in the fibre glass. The most problematic areas are at the base of the shattered window and under apartment 102 deck bordering 103 so in the vicinity of the area. I have overheard the tradesman and they have even commented the construction issues would have weakened the window. C) The owner would have been aware when the window shattered that there were problems directly at its base.
However, at the hearing the tenant explained that she grabbed the door frame when she tripped. That is consistent with the tenant’s written claim document filed with the Tribunal, where she says: It was a sunny day. The deck may be 2 metres wide and the washing was in the middle of the deck. I turned around, the resident two floors above on level 3 did a very loud hacking cough. They have repeatedly done this whenever I or the cat are on the deck. I got a fright, I tripped, kicked my toe on the sliding door frame on ground level. The door was open obviously as I was on the deck. I reached up to the window frame on the side for balance and the interior window (which is double glazed) shattered. There is no damage to the exterior window or frame. I never touched the actual window. I was outside and simply reached up to the frame for balance when I kicked my toe.
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, as is the case with the window claim, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
In this case, I am satisfied that the damage would not be fair wear and tear, and there is no doubt that it occurred during the tenancy. Accordingly, the onus is now on Ms Cruz to prove that the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally.
There is no evidence to support that the damage was intentional; I am sure it was not.
However I consider that the damage is likely to be careless damage. The evidence supports a conclusion that the tenant tripped when going inside the premises, and in the process grabbed the door frame. It is likely that the movement in the frame placed stress on the glass, causing it to break. That would be careless damage.
There is no evidence before me from a qualified person that links any building defect with the broken glass. Further, the fact that the glass broke when Ms Cruz tripped makes the tenant’s actions the far more likely cause of the damage.
The windows were not insured, so the tenant is liable to a maximum of four weeks of rent, which would be $2,000.00. But in this case the landlord seeks the actual repair cost of $1,900.00. I find the tenant is liable for that cost. Tenants claim – Deck works
The tenant seeks compensation for the loss of her deck when it was being replaced by the Body Corporate, and on the basis that she had not been told this work was pending, when she rented the tenancy. The tenant said that when she moved in, she was not advised that the building was a leaky building. The tenant considers that the Body Corporate must have known that there were pending works at the premises. The tenant said that because of the works, she was not able to use the deck for 92 days.
The landlord says that the tenant received the work notice the week before the work started. The building is not a leaky building, but the issue was that water was leaking into the carparks below, and that needed to be addressed. The landlord states that the work started on 3 June finishing on 15 July based on the works notice. The work was not major work, it was replacing the deck. The tenant did not seek a rent reduction at the time.
In conclusion, the tenant said that the work was not completed by 15 July. That is her birthday, so she recalls that she did not have access to the deck at that time, and the contractors were still working on the deck. Analysis
The tenancy started on 20 March 2025. On or around 23 May 2025, the tenant was notified that works to the deck would commence on 5 June 2025. The notice provided by the Body Corporate confirmed that the tenant would not have use of her deck during the works, which were expected to end on 17 July 2025.
The landlord advised in an email to the tenant on 8 August, that he was not aware that the works were to happen, until the notice was received from the Body Corporate manager on 23 May, the same time the tenant was notified.
The tenant considers that the landlord has misrepresented the situation with the tenancy when the landlord did not advise that the works were pending.
While the landlord’s position is that they did not know that the works were about to start, even if that were not the case, there is no requirement in the RTA for a landlord to disclose pending works to the building.
I have also considered if there has been misrepresentation from a contract law perspective, but find there is not. Non-disclosure does not, by itself, amount to misrepresentation. Misrepresentation requires a false or misleading statement, or conduct such as giving a partial answer or concealing information when responding to a direct inquiry. In the absence of such factors, a landlord’s failure to disclose future intended work does not amount to misrepresentation.
However, this is certainly a case where compensation should be provided to the tenant. The tenant is right, that she was paying rent for a property, which included a deck, that she did not get the benefit of.
The challenge then becomes working out what a fair level of compensation would be. The weekly rental was $500 per week, but the tenant considers that if this were a Tenancy without a deck, that a rental at $380 per week would be expected. That would be a rent reduction of $120 per week.
Balance, I consider that would be a fair level of compensation. Not only did the tenant not have the benefit of the deck, but she also had the inconvenience that came along with the construction works, which no doubt would have diminished her quiet enjoyment of the premises.
The tenant advised that the works took some 92 days, and I have no reason not to accept that evidence. Therefore, I find the landlord must pay compensation to the sum of. $1,577.14 to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5329379 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 103, 15 Rendall Place, Eden Terrace,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5329379 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 103, 15 Rendall Place, Eden Terrace,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions