When a Wellington tenant’s window was ripped off its hinges during severe storms last year, his landlord told him he was responsible for paying the bill.

But the Tenancy Tribunal has now said it was “an act of God”, ruling in favour of the renter, who habitually left his window open for ventilation against mould and dampness.

The tenant, who has name suppression, went to work on August 18 last year, leaving his bedroom window on the first latch as he normally did.

He was unaware a severe storm was rolling across the country, causing flooding, washouts and slips, and when he returned home, his window had been ripped off its hinges by the weather.

While the storm was raging, suburbs near the rental property were evacuated because of slips. The weather event caused significant damage across the Wellington region.

The tenant arrived home at 3.30pm to his flatmate telling him the window had come off its hinges 90 minutes earlier and was broken.

The man reported this to the property manager at Rentcare Property Management Limited, but when the group of flatmates received a bill for the repair, they queried the amount.

They instead requested details about insurance coverage from the landlord.

The property manager then sent a bill of $750, the cost of insurance excess. However, the tenants recently argued in the tribunal they are not liable for the costs.

• Neighbours at war: The parking space, the security cameras and the 'violent assault
• 'Stupidity of you': Landlord who sent nasty texts to tenant ordered to pay $6k

During the hearing, the property manager could not say if an insurance claim was made.

In his recent decision, tribunal adjudicator Alan Henwood said the tenant was only liable to pay if the damage was careless or intentional.

In this case, the damage was fair wear and tear, an “act of God” because of the storm.

Rentcare argued the damage wouldn’t have occurred if the window hadn’t been left on the latch, but the tenant said he habitually left it open for ventilation.

He had no reason to believe the damage would occur, Henwood said.

“The tribunal accepts that this is normal or usual use – and, indeed, something encouraged of tenants to prevent mould and dampness.”

-Hazel Osborne, Open Justice