What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5464995?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s request for name suppression is refused.

How much money was awarded in case 5464995?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5464995?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5464995?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13600095-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5464995?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s request for name suppression is refused.

How much money was awarded in case 5464995?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5464995?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5464995?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13600095-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 6, 296 Bealey Avenue, Christchurch Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5464995 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

The landlord’s request for name suppression is refused.

The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Iron Bridge Property Management (Wgtn) Limited Wendy Harrison must pay Taranjeet Singh and Kamaljeet Kaur $28.00 immediately, being the filing fee.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,660.00 (BN-00029268) to Taranjeet Singh and Kamaljeet Kaur immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Harrison represented Iron Bridge.

The landlord has applied for $602.90 compensation for damage to the window at the front of the premises, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenants have applied for repayment of the bond. Background

This tenancy began on 5 February 2024 and ended on 5 February 2025.

The tenancy was managed by the owner of the premises initially. Rentwise Property Management took over for a short time in September 2025 and then Iron Bridge took over from them in November when the premises were sold.

In September, contractors came to the premises and carried out work to relevel them and other adjoining flats. The tenants moved out of the premises for 10 days while the work was undertaken.

The venetian blinds on the window at the front of the premises were too narrow for the window and so the tenants affixed a combination black and opaque material to the inside of the window for privacy.

The tenants had bought a house for themselves and so they moved out of the premises on 15 January 2026.

Mr Singh returned to the premises on 31 January to clean them and he said that after he removed the material from the window, he saw that the window was cracked. He messaged Iron Bridge immediately and informed them of the damage.

Ms Harrison said that Mr Singh called her a few days before 28 January and reported the damage and then on 28 January she went to the premises and saw the damage herself.

There is no ingoing report or other inspection reports in evidence. Iron Bridge did not fully inspect the premises until after the tenancy ended. Relevant Law

The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.

There are limits on the tenant’s liability for damage depending on the landlord’s insurance. Those limits have no application in this case. Evidence and Discussion

The parties agree that the damage occurred during the tenancy. It is therefore up to the tenants to disprove liability for the damage.

Both sides have suggested and provided some evidence based on the belief that the nature of the damage to the window can be used to determine how the damage was caused. I don’t accept that. There is a science that studies the mechanics of how different types of damage to glass was caused. No such expert evidence has been produced. I take judicial notice (meaning from my own knowledge) that it is an extremely technical and uncertain science. Therefore, I do not accept that the type of damage to the glass assists me to determine the likely cause of the damage.

The tenants deny that they caused the damage. They say it was not there when the tenancy began, and they first noticed it on 31 January. They say that it was likely caused when the premises were relevelled in September. They pointed to evidence of subsidence affecting the structure of the premises both before and after the relevelling.

The landlord says that the damage was likely caused by an impact and because the damage was to the inside pane of the double-glazed window, it must have been caused by the tenants.

I prefer the tenants’ evidence in relation to the discovery of the damage. Ms Harrison said that she took a photograph of the window on 28 January, after she was told about it by Mr Singh, but when she produced it on her mobile telephone, it was date stamped 2 February.

The email chain beginning on 31 January is also consistent with Mr Singh’s evidence that he noticed the damage and reported it to Ms Harrison.

I also note that there is no suggestion that the tenants were anything other than model tenants. There was no other damage and there are no other claims on the bond.

As well, if the damage was caused by an impact, how could that happen? The apparent centre of the damage in in the upper part of the living room window. It is difficult to see how that could happen accidently. There is no suggestion that the damage was caused intentionally and if there had been, there is no evidence to support it.

The theory that the damage occurred because of the relevelling is entirely plausible. Those of us who experienced the Canterbury earthquakes know the damage that can result when a building moves.

The material that covered the window during the tenancy would have made the damage difficult to see from both the inside and the outside. Ms Harrison says that she saw the damage when the material was still in place, but she did not take a photograph of it. I would have expected her to do so. Result

These were good tenants who have given a plausible explanation for the damage that exculpates them, and I find that they have proved that they are not responsible for it.

It follows that the landlord’s application must be dismissed and the bond must be paid to the tenants.

Because the tenants have wholly succeeded, I have reimbursed them the filing fee.

The landlord has not succeeded and there is no reason to grant them name suppression.

Order