Tenant's Claim for Garden Shed and Raised Beds Dismissed
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a tenant's claim for compensation for a garden shed and raised garden beds left behind after vacating the property. The Tribunal ruled that the tenant did not obtain prior written consent from the landlord for the installation, making the items the property of the landlord under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is not entitled to compensation for fixtures installed without prior written consent under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📖 What the law says
This rule states that a tenant cannot attach anything permanent to the property, or make changes or additions, unless it's allowed by their tenancy agreement or they have the landlord's written permission beforehand. In this case, the tenant installed a garden shed and raised garden beds without getting prior written consent from the landlord.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's request for compensation for a garden shed and raised garden beds was dismissed.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a tenant's claim for compensation for a garden shed and raised garden beds left behind after vacating the property. The Tribunal ruled that the tenant did not obtain prior written consent from the landlord for the installation, making the items the property of the landlord under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5127228 1
[2025] NZTT 5127228
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The application is dismissed.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing.
2. The applicant has claimed for the cost of a garden shed and raised garden beds left at the property after they vacated. The total claimed cost is $1,391.50.
Background
3. The tenancy ended on 8 September 2024, following a previous order of the Tribunal.
4. The tenant says that around eight months after moving into the property, in around 2020, he was given verbal permission to install the garden shed and garden beds by the previous property manager. No evidence of that permission has been provided and the tenant says there was no further arrangement made around the additions.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5127228 2
5. The tenant submits that the landlord has benefitted from these two items in a subsequent sale and that he has asked for the items to be returned to him or to be paid for the items.
6. The tenant has provided an invoice for $1,391.50 for the garden shed, garden beds and soil. It is dated after the tenancy ended (3 October 2024) but the tenant says this is a fair representation of the likely cost at the time of installation.
7. The landlord says that he knows nothing about any permission given to erect the additions, and that nor do the owners. He says that they only found out that the shed had been installed by the tenants at a previous Tribunal hearing, one month after the tenants had vacated. They had simply been sent an invoice by the tenant requesting payment.
8. Although the email correspondence does show that the tenant had asked for the additions to be returned to them (or payment), I note that this was in October and November 2024, after the tenants had vacated.
The law
9. Section 42 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that:
(1) The tenant shall not affix any fixture to the premises, or make any renovation, alteration, or addition of or to the premises, except –
a. In accordance with the tenancy agreement; or
b. With the prior written consent of the landlord.
(2) …
(3) The tenant may, at any time before the expiry of the tenancy, remove any fixture that the tenant has affixed to the premises during the term of the tenancy, unless the removal would cause irreparable damage to the premises.
(4) Any fixtures affixed by the tenant to the premises but not removed by the tenant on the expiry of the tenancy become the property of the landlord.
10. There was no written consent given by the landlord for the installation of the garden shed or planter boxes, nor was there any requirement in the tenancy agreement for installation.
11. The tenant left these additions at the property when they vacated or at the expiry of the tenancy.
12. In accordance with s42 of the RTA, even if permission was granted these two items accordingly became the property of the landlord when the tenant vacated the property and did not remove them.
13. There is no evidence provided at the time of vacating the property, that the tenant was trying to remove the additions, or anything suggesting that an
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5127228 3
arrangement was being made to do so, until a month or so later when the property was likely already on the market and/or sold and separate Tribunal proceedings were extant.
14. Accordingly, in my view the tenant does not have valid grounds to charge the landlord for the items and in accordance with the RTA, the garden shed, and garden boxes lawfully became the landlord’s property.
15. The claim is dismissed.
[NAME]
15 May 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5127228 4
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5127228 5
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenant was not entitled to compensation because the installed items became the landlord's property when the tenant vacated without removing them.
- The tenant's request for return or payment for the additions was made after they had already vacated the property.
- The tenant did not provide evidence at the time of vacating that they were trying to remove the additions.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant's argument that they had verbal permission to install the items was not supported by evidence.
- The tenant's claim that the landlord benefited from the items in a sale did not create valid grounds for payment.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the tenant's claim for compensation for a garden shed and raised garden beds left behind after vacating the property.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant could claim compensation for a garden shed and raised garden beds installed without prior written consent from the landlord.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant was not entitled to compensation because the items became the property of the landlord under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, as the tenant did not obtain prior written consent for their installation.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 42, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most important argument was that the tenant did not obtain prior written consent from the landlord for the installation of the garden shed and raised garden beds.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have prior written consent from the landlord before installing any fixtures or improvements to the property.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included the lack of prior written consent and the fact that the tenant left the items behind after vacating the property.