What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5268885 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5268885?

Fence Build: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5268885?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5268885?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12618747-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5268885 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5268885?

Fence Build: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5268885?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5268885?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12618747-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5268885 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5268885 — net $200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Fence build	$200.00	Fence build
Net award	$200.00
Bond	$740.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$200.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Claire Worthington $200.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $740.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Claire Worthington: $200.00 [The tenant/s]: $540.00

Reasons

Background

This matter concerns an application by the landlord for compensation relating to the reinstatement of a fence at the end of a long-standing tenancy. The tenancy commenced on 20 October 2015 and ended on 21 April 2025—spanning nearly ten years. The weekly rent was $470.00, and the bond held was $740.00.
The landlord claims $1,483.50, being the full cost of removing and rebuilding a boundary fence which the tenant had modified during the tenancy. The tenant accepts she made changes to the fence with the landlord’s consent and asserts that she reinstated it at the end of the tenancy, to a standard she considered fair and reasonable. She disputes the amount sought, contends that the original fence was already deteriorated, and says the rectification was unnecessary or excessive. The Parties’ Positions
The landlord states that in March 2022, the tenant requested to relocate the fence to enlarge the backyard. Permission was granted, on the understanding that the fence would be reinstated “to a professional standard” at the end of the tenancy. According to the landlord, this standard was not met. She engaged a contractor to remove and rebuild the fence, and now seeks reimbursement of the full cost, or alternatively a negotiated sum of $990.00.
The landlord supplied an itemised report from her contractor, which outlined several alleged defects in the reinstated fence including its reduced height (1.29m instead of the original 1.8m), misalignment, lack of trellis, unstable posts not concreted in, and incorrectly cut materials. The report noted that a portion of the timber was salvaged and reused, but significant rectification was still required. The invoice for the work totalled $1,483.50 (including materials, labour, and disposal).
The tenant disputes this claim. She says she had verbal consent to relocate the fence and was never told it had to be reinstated by a professional. She maintains that she used quick-set concrete for the posts, reused what she could of the old fence (which was already damaged), and purchased new timber and paint at her own expense. She submits costs of $509.81 covering materials and paint. She also asserts that she went above and beyond her obligations in repainting not just the fence but an additional side fence, and that she maintained the property well over the tenancy. She denies that the landlord has suffered any actual loss and says the replacement fence is an improvement on what existed prior.
The tenant also raises broader concerns about her experience with the landlord, referencing unresolved maintenance issues and emotional stress from the Tribunal process. Legal Framework
The legal principles governing alterations by tenants are set out in section 42 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA): •A tenant may not make alterations to the premises without the landlord’s written consent (s 42(1)). •The landlord may attach reasonable conditions to any consent, including the standard of reinstatement (s 42(2)). •Where reinstatement is required, and there is no agreement as to the standard, the tenant must return the property to “substantially the same condition as before the alteration,” fair wear and tear excepted (s 42(3)).
The onus is on the landlord to prove: •That an alteration was made; •That reinstatement was required and not completed to the agreed or a reasonable standard; •That the cost of reinstatement was necessary and reasonable.
The Tribunal must also consider: •Whether the landlord has suffered actual loss (Swift v Quinovic Property Management Kapiti-Mana NZTT Porirua 4291385; Rawstorne v Westside Management Ltd T/A Quinovic NZDC 14114); •Whether the claim reflects betterment (i.e., the landlord receiving a new fence in place of one near end-of-life); •The estimated life of a timber fence (commonly 10–15 years under Tribunal depreciation guides and IRD schedules). Analysis
It is not in dispute that the tenant modified the fence during the tenancy, and that this was done with the landlord’s consent. What is disputed is the standard of reinstatement and whether compensation is now payable for the landlord’s decision to rebuild the fence.
While the landlord asserts that the fence had to be reinstated to a “professional standard”, there is no evidence that this condition was recorded in writing. The Tribunal accepts that some expectation of reinstatement existed, but in the absence of clear written conditions, the default under section 42(3) applies: reinstatement to substantially the same condition, fair wear and tear excepted.
The tenant produced credible evidence that she reinstated the fence using her own materials and labour. The Tribunal accepts that she made genuine efforts to restore the fence. Her evidence that the original fence was already aged, the trellis broken, and the gate detached is plausible and consistent with the long duration of the tenancy. She also provided details of the costs she incurred and her reinstatement efforts, including painting and additional upkeep.
The landlord’s evidence, while detailed, fails to adequately establish the age or condition of the original fence prior to the tenant’s modifications. She concedes the fence was “well over 10 years old”. Based on standard depreciation guides, the useful life of a timber fence is 10–15 years. The Tribunal considers it likely that the fence was at or near the end of its life, and would have required replacement in the near future regardless of tenant actions.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the landlord has proved actual loss justifying full reinstatement costs. The landlord has gained a new fence with improved materials and design, but the fence it replaced had minimal remaining value. The Tribunal accepts the tenant’s evidence that a significant portion of the timber was reused, and that the main shortcoming related to the height and lack of trellis—a feature that was already in poor condition prior.
This is not a case where the tenant caused damage or failed to reinstate entirely. Rather, she carried out the reinstatement herself, to a standard that was arguably imperfect, but not negligent or unreasonable in the circumstances. Even if some shortcomings existed (e.g., alignment or post footing), the Tribunal is not persuaded that they resulted in meaningful loss, or that full replacement was strictly necessary.
Given the betterment principle and depreciated state of the original fence, the Tribunal considers that any award must be modest. A nominal amount of $200.00 is awarded, representing an estimated residual value of the old fence and a contribution towards rectification. This figure reflects the limited life expectancy remaining and the lack of clear evidence of loss. Decision
The landlord’s claim for compensation is partially successful.
The tenant is to pay the landlord the sum of $200.00 as compensation for reinstatement of the fence.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.
No order is made regarding the filing fee as the parties have each partially succeeded. Name Suppression
The tenant has been substantially successful in defending the landlord’s claim and is granted name suppression under section 95A(1) RTA. There is no basis to grant suppression to the landlord, who has not been substantially successful, nor has any evidence of undue hardship been provided. Accordingly, the landlord’s name and details are not suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5268885 — net $200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Fence build	$200.00	Fence build
Net award	$200.00
Bond	$740.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$200.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Claire Worthington $200.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $740.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Claire Worthington: $200.00 [The tenant/s]: $540.00

Reasons

Background

This matter concerns an application by the landlord for compensation relating to the reinstatement of a fence at the end of a long-standing tenancy. The tenancy commenced on 20 October 2015 and ended on 21 April 2025—spanning nearly ten years. The weekly rent was $470.00, and the bond held was $740.00.
The landlord claims $1,483.50, being the full cost of removing and rebuilding a boundary fence which the tenant had modified during the tenancy. The tenant accepts she made changes to the fence with the landlord’s consent and asserts that she reinstated it at the end of the tenancy, to a standard she considered fair and reasonable. She disputes the amount sought, contends that the original fence was already deteriorated, and says the rectification was unnecessary or excessive. The Parties’ Positions
The landlord states that in March 2022, the tenant requested to relocate the fence to enlarge the backyard. Permission was granted, on the understanding that the fence would be reinstated “to a professional standard” at the end of the tenancy. According to the landlord, this standard was not met. She engaged a contractor to remove and rebuild the fence, and now seeks reimbursement of the full cost, or alternatively a negotiated sum of $990.00.
The landlord supplied an itemised report from her contractor, which outlined several alleged defects in the reinstated fence including its reduced height (1.29m instead of the original 1.8m), misalignment, lack of trellis, unstable posts not concreted in, and incorrectly cut materials. The report noted that a portion of the timber was salvaged and reused, but significant rectification was still required. The invoice for the work totalled $1,483.50 (including materials, labour, and disposal).
The tenant disputes this claim. She says she had verbal consent to relocate the fence and was never told it had to be reinstated by a professional. She maintains that she used quick-set concrete for the posts, reused what she could of the old fence (which was already damaged), and purchased new timber and paint at her own expense. She submits costs of $509.81 covering materials and paint. She also asserts that she went above and beyond her obligations in repainting not just the fence but an additional side fence, and that she maintained the property well over the tenancy. She denies that the landlord has suffered any actual loss and says the replacement fence is an improvement on what existed prior.
The tenant also raises broader concerns about her experience with the landlord, referencing unresolved maintenance issues and emotional stress from the Tribunal process. Legal Framework
The legal principles governing alterations by tenants are set out in section 42 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA): •A tenant may not make alterations to the premises without the landlord’s written consent (s 42(1)). •The landlord may attach reasonable conditions to any consent, including the standard of reinstatement (s 42(2)). •Where reinstatement is required, and there is no agreement as to the standard, the tenant must return the property to “substantially the same condition as before the alteration,” fair wear and tear excepted (s 42(3)).
The onus is on the landlord to prove: •That an alteration was made; •That reinstatement was required and not completed to the agreed or a reasonable standard; •That the cost of reinstatement was necessary and reasonable.
The Tribunal must also consider: •Whether the landlord has suffered actual loss (Swift v Quinovic Property Management Kapiti-Mana NZTT Porirua 4291385; Rawstorne v Westside Management Ltd T/A Quinovic NZDC 14114); •Whether the claim reflects betterment (i.e., the landlord receiving a new fence in place of one near end-of-life); •The estimated life of a timber fence (commonly 10–15 years under Tribunal depreciation guides and IRD schedules). Analysis
It is not in dispute that the tenant modified the fence during the tenancy, and that this was done with the landlord’s consent. What is disputed is the standard of reinstatement and whether compensation is now payable for the landlord’s decision to rebuild the fence.
While the landlord asserts that the fence had to be reinstated to a “professional standard”, there is no evidence that this condition was recorded in writing. The Tribunal accepts that some expectation of reinstatement existed, but in the absence of clear written conditions, the default under section 42(3) applies: reinstatement to substantially the same condition, fair wear and tear excepted.
The tenant produced credible evidence that she reinstated the fence using her own materials and labour. The Tribunal accepts that she made genuine efforts to restore the fence. Her evidence that the original fence was already aged, the trellis broken, and the gate detached is plausible and consistent with the long duration of the tenancy. She also provided details of the costs she incurred and her reinstatement efforts, including painting and additional upkeep.
The landlord’s evidence, while detailed, fails to adequately establish the age or condition of the original fence prior to the tenant’s modifications. She concedes the fence was “well over 10 years old”. Based on standard depreciation guides, the useful life of a timber fence is 10–15 years. The Tribunal considers it likely that the fence was at or near the end of its life, and would have required replacement in the near future regardless of tenant actions.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the landlord has proved actual loss justifying full reinstatement costs. The landlord has gained a new fence with improved materials and design, but the fence it replaced had minimal remaining value. The Tribunal accepts the tenant’s evidence that a significant portion of the timber was reused, and that the main shortcoming related to the height and lack of trellis—a feature that was already in poor condition prior.
This is not a case where the tenant caused damage or failed to reinstate entirely. Rather, she carried out the reinstatement herself, to a standard that was arguably imperfect, but not negligent or unreasonable in the circumstances. Even if some shortcomings existed (e.g., alignment or post footing), the Tribunal is not persuaded that they resulted in meaningful loss, or that full replacement was strictly necessary.
Given the betterment principle and depreciated state of the original fence, the Tribunal considers that any award must be modest. A nominal amount of $200.00 is awarded, representing an estimated residual value of the old fence and a contribution towards rectification. This figure reflects the limited life expectancy remaining and the lack of clear evidence of loss. Decision
The landlord’s claim for compensation is partially successful.
The tenant is to pay the landlord the sum of $200.00 as compensation for reinstatement of the fence.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.
No order is made regarding the filing fee as the parties have each partially succeeded. Name Suppression
The tenant has been substantially successful in defending the landlord’s claim and is granted name suppression under section 95A(1) RTA. There is no basis to grant suppression to the landlord, who has not been substantially successful, nor has any evidence of undue hardship been provided. Accordingly, the landlord’s name and details are not suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5268885 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5268885 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions