What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421322 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5421322?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421322?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421322?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13269006-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421322 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5421322?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421322?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421322?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13269006-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

6 Picton Avenue, Newtown, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5421322 — Healthy homes

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video conference.
The landlord has applied for compensation for a broken window, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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.
There is no evidence before me that the landlord has made an insurance claim on the damaged window.
A window was damaged during the tenancy; the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord contends that the damage was due to the tenant’s failure to properly or adequately secure the window in windy conditions which Wellington is known for. The landlord submits that the damage is caused by the tenant’s carelessness. The landlord seeks window repair and replacement cost of $1,592.18.
Having heard from the parties and viewed the photographs and materials submitted, I prefer the tenant’s evidence that they had not intentionally nor carelessly damaged the window.
I accept the tenant’s explanation that on the day of the incident, they had opened the window and engaged a latch on the window. The tenants were at home on that day.
Despite the windy conditions, I consider that the tenant was entitled to leave the windows open while at home, provided the latch was put on or engaged. I accept the tenant’s evidence that they had duly engaged the latch on the window which was left ajar. I do not think it is likely that the window was left rattling without a latch being engaged as alluded to by the landlord.
I consider that a well-maintained window should be capable of being left open with the latch on even in windy conditions, to allow for ventilation to the premises. If a window has to be secured shut in windy conditions, then the condition of the window was inadequate to begin with.
For those reasons, the tenant has disproved liability for the damage. I find that the tenants have not intentionally nor carelessly damaged the window when they left it open with the latch on notwithstanding the windy Wellington conditions. The latch or some other part of the window was likely to be defective given that the window caught the wind with force causing the damage under those circumstances.
In any event, I find that the wooden window was old and deteriorated. There were signs of rotting wood and rusted nails/screws. Taking into account betterment and depreciation, the window has reached the end of its useful lifespan, and it was about time that it is replaced.
The landlord can only be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In considering depreciation, I must into account the age and condition of the item at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
I therefore conclude that even if the tenants were careless in causing damage to the window as alleged by the landlord, the window has fully depreciated and no compensation is due to the landlord.
For the above reasons, the landlord’s claim for compensation is unsuccessful.
The tenancy having ended, the bond can now be returned to the tenants in full.
I also order suppression of the tenant’s names as they were wholly successful in their defence of the claim filed herein.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video conference.
The landlord has applied for compensation for a broken window, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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.
There is no evidence before me that the landlord has made an insurance claim on the damaged window.
A window was damaged during the tenancy; the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord contends that the damage was due to the tenant’s failure to properly or adequately secure the window in windy conditions which Wellington is known for. The landlord submits that the damage is caused by the tenant’s carelessness. The landlord seeks window repair and replacement cost of $1,592.18.
Having heard from the parties and viewed the photographs and materials submitted, I prefer the tenant’s evidence that they had not intentionally nor carelessly damaged the window.
I accept the tenant’s explanation that on the day of the incident, they had opened the window and engaged a latch on the window. The tenants were at home on that day.
Despite the windy conditions, I consider that the tenant was entitled to leave the windows open while at home, provided the latch was put on or engaged. I accept the tenant’s evidence that they had duly engaged the latch on the window which was left ajar. I do not think it is likely that the window was left rattling without a latch being engaged as alluded to by the landlord.
I consider that a well-maintained window should be capable of being left open with the latch on even in windy conditions, to allow for ventilation to the premises. If a window has to be secured shut in windy conditions, then the condition of the window was inadequate to begin with.
For those reasons, the tenant has disproved liability for the damage. I find that the tenants have not intentionally nor carelessly damaged the window when they left it open with the latch on notwithstanding the windy Wellington conditions. The latch or some other part of the window was likely to be defective given that the window caught the wind with force causing the damage under those circumstances.
In any event, I find that the wooden window was old and deteriorated. There were signs of rotting wood and rusted nails/screws. Taking into account betterment and depreciation, the window has reached the end of its useful lifespan, and it was about time that it is replaced.
The landlord can only be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In considering depreciation, I must into account the age and condition of the item at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
I therefore conclude that even if the tenants were careless in causing damage to the window as alleged by the landlord, the window has fully depreciated and no compensation is due to the landlord.
For the above reasons, the landlord’s claim for compensation is unsuccessful.
The tenancy having ended, the bond can now be returned to the tenants in full.
I also order suppression of the tenant’s names as they were wholly successful in their defence of the claim filed herein.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421322 — Healthy homes at 6 Picton Avenue, Newtown, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421322 — Healthy homes at 6 Picton Avenue, Newtown, Wellington 6021

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