What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5244592?

The tribunal order states: Iona Sheena Jones and Oliver Goertz must pay Michael Ian Grey and Stephanie

How much money was awarded in case 5244592?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5244592?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5244592?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12309773-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5244592?

The tribunal order states: Iona Sheena Jones and Oliver Goertz must pay Michael Ian Grey and Stephanie

How much money was awarded in case 5244592?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5244592?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5244592?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12309773-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 2, 9 Bartlett Street, Riccarton, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5244592 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5244592 — net $777.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess	$750.00	Insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$777.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$777.00

Order

Iona Sheena Jones and Oliver Goertz must pay Michael Ian Grey and Stephanie Grey $777.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

This matter concerns a tenancy which commenced on 21 March 2024 and ended on 12 December 2024. The rent was $750 per week and a bond of $1,500 was held.
The landlords have filed an application seeking compensation of $750 from the former tenants. The landlords claim the amount as reimbursement for the insurance excess on a claim they lodged for damage to UV/privacy film on three windows, caused when the tenants removed adhesive hooks used to hang fairy lights.
The key issue is whether the tenants are liable for the claimed damage under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), and if so, whether the compensation sought is reasonable.
The landlords claim that the tenants caused irreversible damage to UV and privacy film applied to an internal kitchen window and two external balcony panels. They say this occurred when adhesive hooks were removed at the end of the tenancy. The landlords submitted photographic evidence of the damage, correspondence from the tenants acknowledging responsibility for some of the marks, and a quote from Solar Tint Ltd confirming the film cannot be repaired and must be replaced. Their insurer has accepted the claim, but an excess of $750 applies, which the landlords seek to recover from the tenants.
The tenants accept responsibility for some damage—specifically, to the kitchen window and to limited sections of the balcony panel where tape was removed. However, they deny liability for the full replacement cost. They argue that the extent of the damage is minor and that requiring full replacement of the film is disproportionate. They also suggest that some of the marks were pre-existing, the film may be near the end of its useful life, and that they have already offered to contribute $250, which they believe to be a fair compromise.
The tenants further submit that they took care to leave the premises in a clean condition, had the carpets professionally cleaned, and acted in good faith. They reject the landlords’ implication that they acted dishonestly, citing efforts to raise issues early and apologise for their role. Relevant Law
Under section 40(2)(a) of the RTA, a tenant must not intentionally or carelessly damage, or permit any other person to damage, the premises. If damage occurs and is not the result of fair wear and tear, the tenant may be liable for the costs of repair.
Section 49B of the RTA provides that tenants are liable for careless damage to premises unless the damage is fully covered by the landlord’s insurance. However, under section 49B(3), tenants remain liable to reimburse the landlord for any insurance excess.
Fair wear and tear refers to the expected gradual deterioration from reasonable use, not to sudden or avoidable damage. Where adhesive tape is used on a protective film not designed to bear such fixtures, and where visible tearing or scratching results, the damage is not reasonably classified as wear and tear.
The Tribunal must assess whether the damage was careless (as opposed to deliberate or accidental), whether the repair cost is reasonable, and whether the insurance claim and associated excess are appropriately passed to the tenants. Analysis
The tenants have accepted responsibility for some of the damage, including to the kitchen window and parts of the left-hand balcony panel. The Tribunal accepts this concession as made in good faith and supported by evidence. However, the tenants dispute damage to other areas, particularly the right-hand panel, stating it may have been pre-existing.
The landlords provided pre-tenancy photos and contemporaneous emails showing that condition photos were sent and acknowledged by the tenants. While the clarity of some images is contested, the landlords’ documentation demonstrates a practice of recording the premises’ condition and confirms the absence of reported pre-existing damage to the windows or film.
The Tribunal accepts the professional opinion from Solar Tint Ltd that the film cannot be repaired and must be replaced to restore the panels to their original condition. The quoted cost of $966 appears reasonable and has been accepted by the insurer. The claim is supported by the insurer’s classification of the damage as “accidental damage” under the tenant liability insurance policy.
The insurance excess of $750 is clearly within the scope of sections 49B(3) of the RTA and is recoverable by the landlord unless the Tribunal is satisfied that the damage was not caused carelessly or was not the tenants’ responsibility.
The Tribunal finds that applying adhesive hooks to film-coated windows is not a normal or reasonable use of the premises. Once the first section tore, a reasonable person would have ceased removing additional hooks. Continuing to do so reflects a lack of care and awareness of consequences, and the Tribunal is satisfied this constitutes careless damage under section 49B.
The tenants’ arguments about the film’s age and environmental exposure are noted, but not persuasive in this case. The landlords are entitled to return the property in the same condition it was given. The film’s current state is visibly degraded due to specific, admitted actions taken by the tenants. The existence of older film alone does not negate responsibility for new damage.
The tenants’ offer to pay one-third of the excess was a genuine attempt at resolution. However, given the number of damaged areas, the expert confirmation that full replacement is required, and the inability to isolate liability to only one section of the film, the Tribunal finds the tenants liable for the full amount of the excess. Conclusion
The damage to the UV and privacy film on the internal and balcony windows was caused by the tenants’ careless actions. The damage goes beyond what could be considered fair wear and tear and is not repairable. The insurance excess of $750 is recoverable under sections 49B(2) and (3) of the RTA.
While the Tribunal acknowledges the tenants’ good faith participation and partial acceptance of liability, the evidence supports that the full excess amount is reasonably attributable to the damage caused.
The tenants must pay the landlords the sum of $750.00 as compensation for the insurance excess associated with the replacement of the damaged UV/privacy film. This sum is payable immediately.
The previous bond order remains unaffected.
As the landlords have been wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order the tenants to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5244592 — net $777.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess	$750.00	Insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$777.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$777.00

Order

Iona Sheena Jones and Oliver Goertz must pay Michael Ian Grey and Stephanie Grey $777.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

This matter concerns a tenancy which commenced on 21 March 2024 and ended on 12 December 2024. The rent was $750 per week and a bond of $1,500 was held.
The landlords have filed an application seeking compensation of $750 from the former tenants. The landlords claim the amount as reimbursement for the insurance excess on a claim they lodged for damage to UV/privacy film on three windows, caused when the tenants removed adhesive hooks used to hang fairy lights.
The key issue is whether the tenants are liable for the claimed damage under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), and if so, whether the compensation sought is reasonable.
The landlords claim that the tenants caused irreversible damage to UV and privacy film applied to an internal kitchen window and two external balcony panels. They say this occurred when adhesive hooks were removed at the end of the tenancy. The landlords submitted photographic evidence of the damage, correspondence from the tenants acknowledging responsibility for some of the marks, and a quote from Solar Tint Ltd confirming the film cannot be repaired and must be replaced. Their insurer has accepted the claim, but an excess of $750 applies, which the landlords seek to recover from the tenants.
The tenants accept responsibility for some damage—specifically, to the kitchen window and to limited sections of the balcony panel where tape was removed. However, they deny liability for the full replacement cost. They argue that the extent of the damage is minor and that requiring full replacement of the film is disproportionate. They also suggest that some of the marks were pre-existing, the film may be near the end of its useful life, and that they have already offered to contribute $250, which they believe to be a fair compromise.
The tenants further submit that they took care to leave the premises in a clean condition, had the carpets professionally cleaned, and acted in good faith. They reject the landlords’ implication that they acted dishonestly, citing efforts to raise issues early and apologise for their role. Relevant Law
Under section 40(2)(a) of the RTA, a tenant must not intentionally or carelessly damage, or permit any other person to damage, the premises. If damage occurs and is not the result of fair wear and tear, the tenant may be liable for the costs of repair.
Section 49B of the RTA provides that tenants are liable for careless damage to premises unless the damage is fully covered by the landlord’s insurance. However, under section 49B(3), tenants remain liable to reimburse the landlord for any insurance excess.
Fair wear and tear refers to the expected gradual deterioration from reasonable use, not to sudden or avoidable damage. Where adhesive tape is used on a protective film not designed to bear such fixtures, and where visible tearing or scratching results, the damage is not reasonably classified as wear and tear.
The Tribunal must assess whether the damage was careless (as opposed to deliberate or accidental), whether the repair cost is reasonable, and whether the insurance claim and associated excess are appropriately passed to the tenants. Analysis
The tenants have accepted responsibility for some of the damage, including to the kitchen window and parts of the left-hand balcony panel. The Tribunal accepts this concession as made in good faith and supported by evidence. However, the tenants dispute damage to other areas, particularly the right-hand panel, stating it may have been pre-existing.
The landlords provided pre-tenancy photos and contemporaneous emails showing that condition photos were sent and acknowledged by the tenants. While the clarity of some images is contested, the landlords’ documentation demonstrates a practice of recording the premises’ condition and confirms the absence of reported pre-existing damage to the windows or film.
The Tribunal accepts the professional opinion from Solar Tint Ltd that the film cannot be repaired and must be replaced to restore the panels to their original condition. The quoted cost of $966 appears reasonable and has been accepted by the insurer. The claim is supported by the insurer’s classification of the damage as “accidental damage” under the tenant liability insurance policy.
The insurance excess of $750 is clearly within the scope of sections 49B(3) of the RTA and is recoverable by the landlord unless the Tribunal is satisfied that the damage was not caused carelessly or was not the tenants’ responsibility.
The Tribunal finds that applying adhesive hooks to film-coated windows is not a normal or reasonable use of the premises. Once the first section tore, a reasonable person would have ceased removing additional hooks. Continuing to do so reflects a lack of care and awareness of consequences, and the Tribunal is satisfied this constitutes careless damage under section 49B.
The tenants’ arguments about the film’s age and environmental exposure are noted, but not persuasive in this case. The landlords are entitled to return the property in the same condition it was given. The film’s current state is visibly degraded due to specific, admitted actions taken by the tenants. The existence of older film alone does not negate responsibility for new damage.
The tenants’ offer to pay one-third of the excess was a genuine attempt at resolution. However, given the number of damaged areas, the expert confirmation that full replacement is required, and the inability to isolate liability to only one section of the film, the Tribunal finds the tenants liable for the full amount of the excess. Conclusion
The damage to the UV and privacy film on the internal and balcony windows was caused by the tenants’ careless actions. The damage goes beyond what could be considered fair wear and tear and is not repairable. The insurance excess of $750 is recoverable under sections 49B(2) and (3) of the RTA.
While the Tribunal acknowledges the tenants’ good faith participation and partial acceptance of liability, the evidence supports that the full excess amount is reasonably attributable to the damage caused.
The tenants must pay the landlords the sum of $750.00 as compensation for the insurance excess associated with the replacement of the damaged UV/privacy film. This sum is payable immediately.
The previous bond order remains unaffected.
As the landlords have been wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order the tenants to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5244592 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 2, 9 Bartlett Street, Riccarton, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5244592 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 2, 9 Bartlett Street, Riccarton, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions