What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5367326 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 5367326?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5367326?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5367326?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13071032-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5367326 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 5367326?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5367326?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5367326?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13071032-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 6, 324A The Terrace, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5367326 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5367326 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$28.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The tenant is not liable for either the cost to repair the window which was damaged on 5 September 2025, or the insurance excess related to the repairs.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video. The tenant had the assistance of a mandarin interpreter.
The tenant has applied in relation to the landlord requesting that the tenant meet the cost for repair of the window damaged on 5 September 2025.
The invoice for the repairs amounts to $1,336.10. At the hearing the landlord advised that an insurance claim has been successful and therefore the landlord now seeks the insurance excess of $350.00 from the tenant rather than the full amount of the invoice.
The tenant denies that he is liable for either the cost of repair or the insurance excess in relation to the window.
The damage to the window occurred on 5 September 2025. The tenant said that he opened the window around 8.20am to ventilate the lounge area. The tenant left for work and his wife remained at home.
At 9.09am the tenant’s wife sent a text message to the tenant advising that the window had broken because of the wind. I note that the communication between the tenant and his wife is not in English, so I am unable to accurately determine what was communicated between them.
At 9.21am the tenant sent an email to the landlord advising that strong winds that morning had blown the living room window out of its frame. He provided two photographs and asked for it to be repaired as soon as possible.
In response the landlord asked if the window was open when it blew off.
At the hearing the tenant said that his wife tried to shut the window, but it blew off and landed on the ground. The landlord claims that the tenant was negligent by having the window open on a day where high winds were expected. He said that there were no maintenance issues for the window, and it should not have been left open in a high wind event.
The premises are around 70 years old as the landlord agreed that it was likely constructed in the 1950s. The window is a wooden casement window attached by three hinges down one side. When opened a casement stay is used to secure the window. From the photographs it appears likely that the window and hardware are also original, so 70 years old.
The landlord produced photographs of the window and framing with one photograph showing damage to the frame likely from a hinge coming away from the frame. The landlord relied on this photograph to submit that there was no issue with the hinges. But the photograph only showed the position where one hinge was attached to the frame and not the other two hinges.
The landlord said that the contractor had advised that there were no maintenance issues with the window which would have contributed to the damage. There is nothing in the contractor’s invoice to support this and no other evidence was submitted.
The landlord submitted that the tenant was negligent because the weather on the day in question was severe and the tenant should have had the windows closed. He said the forecast was for wind that day which he said is not uncommon in Wellington, where the tenancy is located.
In reply the tenant said that he did not think that the wind was particularly strong that day suggesting that the wind which caused the window to come away from the frame was unexpected.
It is well known that Wellington often has strong winds. The context is relevant when considering responsibility for damage. If the property is in an area known for high winds, the landlord should ensure that windows and other parts of the property are suitable for those conditions. This may include installing stronger windows or hardware and providing guidance to tenants about safe use.
The landlord had said that on occasion it provides tenants with communication when there is a weather warning, but that did not occur on 5 September 2025.
If the tenant knows the area is prone to high winds, they are expected to take reasonable care – such as not leaving windows open during strong winds if it is foreseeable that damage could result.
The landlord did not produce any evidence that the weather on 5 September 2025 was particularly bad. There is also no evidence that the bad weather that contributed to the damage which occurred at 9am was foreseeable when the tenant left the window open.
On the evidence produced I am not satisfied that the tenant was negligent and therefore liable for the damage to the window. While the landlord submits that there were no maintenance issues in relation to the window there was no clear evidence to support that. It may be that the answer to avoiding situations such as this is for the landlord to install updated window hardware such as opening restrictors.
I have reached the view that the tenant is not liable for the cost of repairing the window or the insurance excess associated with the repair.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason the tenant’s name is suppressed as sought.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5367326 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$28.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The tenant is not liable for either the cost to repair the window which was damaged on 5 September 2025, or the insurance excess related to the repairs.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video. The tenant had the assistance of a mandarin interpreter.
The tenant has applied in relation to the landlord requesting that the tenant meet the cost for repair of the window damaged on 5 September 2025.
The invoice for the repairs amounts to $1,336.10. At the hearing the landlord advised that an insurance claim has been successful and therefore the landlord now seeks the insurance excess of $350.00 from the tenant rather than the full amount of the invoice.
The tenant denies that he is liable for either the cost of repair or the insurance excess in relation to the window.
The damage to the window occurred on 5 September 2025. The tenant said that he opened the window around 8.20am to ventilate the lounge area. The tenant left for work and his wife remained at home.
At 9.09am the tenant’s wife sent a text message to the tenant advising that the window had broken because of the wind. I note that the communication between the tenant and his wife is not in English, so I am unable to accurately determine what was communicated between them.
At 9.21am the tenant sent an email to the landlord advising that strong winds that morning had blown the living room window out of its frame. He provided two photographs and asked for it to be repaired as soon as possible.
In response the landlord asked if the window was open when it blew off.
At the hearing the tenant said that his wife tried to shut the window, but it blew off and landed on the ground. The landlord claims that the tenant was negligent by having the window open on a day where high winds were expected. He said that there were no maintenance issues for the window, and it should not have been left open in a high wind event.
The premises are around 70 years old as the landlord agreed that it was likely constructed in the 1950s. The window is a wooden casement window attached by three hinges down one side. When opened a casement stay is used to secure the window. From the photographs it appears likely that the window and hardware are also original, so 70 years old.
The landlord produced photographs of the window and framing with one photograph showing damage to the frame likely from a hinge coming away from the frame. The landlord relied on this photograph to submit that there was no issue with the hinges. But the photograph only showed the position where one hinge was attached to the frame and not the other two hinges.
The landlord said that the contractor had advised that there were no maintenance issues with the window which would have contributed to the damage. There is nothing in the contractor’s invoice to support this and no other evidence was submitted.
The landlord submitted that the tenant was negligent because the weather on the day in question was severe and the tenant should have had the windows closed. He said the forecast was for wind that day which he said is not uncommon in Wellington, where the tenancy is located.
In reply the tenant said that he did not think that the wind was particularly strong that day suggesting that the wind which caused the window to come away from the frame was unexpected.
It is well known that Wellington often has strong winds. The context is relevant when considering responsibility for damage. If the property is in an area known for high winds, the landlord should ensure that windows and other parts of the property are suitable for those conditions. This may include installing stronger windows or hardware and providing guidance to tenants about safe use.
The landlord had said that on occasion it provides tenants with communication when there is a weather warning, but that did not occur on 5 September 2025.
If the tenant knows the area is prone to high winds, they are expected to take reasonable care – such as not leaving windows open during strong winds if it is foreseeable that damage could result.
The landlord did not produce any evidence that the weather on 5 September 2025 was particularly bad. There is also no evidence that the bad weather that contributed to the damage which occurred at 9am was foreseeable when the tenant left the window open.
On the evidence produced I am not satisfied that the tenant was negligent and therefore liable for the damage to the window. While the landlord submits that there were no maintenance issues in relation to the window there was no clear evidence to support that. It may be that the answer to avoiding situations such as this is for the landlord to install updated window hardware such as opening restrictors.
I have reached the view that the tenant is not liable for the cost of repairing the window or the insurance excess associated with the repair.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason the tenant’s name is suppressed as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5367326 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 6, 324A The Terrace, Te Aro, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5367326 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 6, 324A The Terrace, Te Aro, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions