Prebbleton landlords ordered to pay tenants $400 compensation for broken garden fountain

Monday, 27 July 2026

The water fountain was black and in the shape of an urn, similar to the one pictured. (file photo)

A Christchurch couple have been granted $400 in compensation after their landlords failed to maintain a garden water feature.

The Tenancy Tribunal ruled landlords Lisa Smart and Jeremy Smart, as trustees of the Smart Family Trust, breached their maintenance obligations by failing to keep a decorative urn-shaped water feature in working order at their Prebbleton rental property.

Tenants Shuo Chang and Min Wu told the tribunal “they have been denied the pleasure of looking out the kitchen window and seeing the water spilling out of the urn and running down its surface”.

Tribunal adjudicator Ross Armstrong’s decision says the landlords tried to get it working, but to no avail and never replaced the feature, which was black and in the shape of an urn. When filled with water and working, the water overflows the urn and cascades down the outside of it where it is collected and recirculated.

“It is a small part of what comprises the amenity and enjoyment of the premises, but some compensation is warranted,” he said.

The tenants complained that a leafblower left in the garage was removed by the landlord. (File image)

Chang and Wu also unsuccessfully sought compensation for a wide range of issues, all of which were dismissed, including that garden maintenance expectations for the 600sqm property was “forced labour”.

The tenants complained that a kitchen tap leaked and was not repaired, and a drawer in the ensuite was faulty for the last six months of the tenancy.

Armstrong said the tap and the drawer were minor irritations at most.

They complained about flickering LED lights, but Armstrong found no evidence of an underlying electrical problem, noting the home was nearly 10 years old and the lights were likely failing due to age.

They complained about excessive landlord inspections, but Armstrong said there was no evidence the landlords entered the premises otherwise than in accordance with their rights of entry under the Act.

The tenants claimed that the landlords expected them to carry out garden maintenance that went beyond their obligations and that they did not provide them with the equipment to do so. They described it as “forced labour”.

They said that the letting agent told them that all they were responsible for was cutting the grass and the landlords would take care of all other gardening work.

They complained that the landlords took away a leaf blower and told them to buy a rake.

The tenants complained about water forming and dripping from the heat pump but the tribunal found no evidence to prove that there was a fault. (File image)

“The tenants may have assumed that the leaf blower was left for them, but it was not a named chattel. In any case, raking the leaves was not an unreasonable burden and they could have bought a leaf blower. This claim is therefore dismissed,” Armstrong said.

Armstrong also found no evidence of a claimed mouse infestation nor of any landlord breach that might cause an infestation.

Other dismissed complaints included about a faulty heat pump, an unlockable garage door, and a leaking ensuite bathroom.

The landlords unsuccessfully sought $4000 for shower regrouting work and $10,000 in lost rent, arguing the tenants had blocked timely access to carry out repairs to the leaking ensuite.

Armstrong rejected both claims, finding the tenants correctly reported the leaking and the landlords' builder reported no urgency for the repairs. He said there was no evidence the premises could have been re-let if the work had been done sooner.

The tenants were awarded a full refund of their $4000 bond.