Christchurch landlords ordered to pay $400 for broken water feature

When Shuo Chang and Min Wu moved into their rental, they expected to enjoy the view of two water features outside their window.

Instead, they were "denied the pleasure" of one water feature and had to look out at a giant urn-like feature that was bone dry because their landlords could not get it to work.

Now Christchurch landlords Lisa Smart and Jeremy Smart, as trustees of the Smart Family Trust, must pay Chang and Wu $400 in compensation for the non-working feature after the tenants took their case to the Tenancy Tribunal.

Chang told Open Justice that the case was never just about a fountain.

"We moved into a home with existing defects, spent two years reporting recurring maintenance problems, and then faced claims seeking to make us pay for the property's wear and repair costs," Chang claimed.

"When we reported water ingress, it was not treated as urgent; after we left, the same issue became the basis of claims totalling $14,000. Those claims were dismissed, but we left the tribunal feeling that we had not been heard on equal terms."

He said both he and the landlords were appealing the decision.

Both the tenants and landlords had applied to the tribunal regarding several issues during the now-ended two-year tenancy.

The tenants sought compensation and exemplary damages for various alleged breaches of the landlords' obligations and repayment of the bond, while the landlords sought compensation for the tenants' alleged failure to allow proper access to the premises and for loss and expense relating to their attendance at the hearing.

Tribunal adjudicator Ross Armstrong said in his recently released decision that there were two water features in the garden of the property.

When the tenancy began, one worked and one did not.

The one that did not work was black and shaped like an urn. When filled with water and working, the water overflowed and cascaded down its exterior, where it was collected and recirculated.

The landlords were unable to get it to work during the tenancy.

The tenants told the tribunal the property manager had told them before the tenancy began that both water features worked.

"They say that 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," Armstrong said.

He accepted the tenants were entitled to have two working water features, and as they were part of the premises, the landlords were required to provide and maintain them in a reasonable state of repair.

"From my assessment of the messages relating to the water feature, I accept that the tenants wanted it to work. I also accept that they would have taken pleasure from seeing it working when they were looking out the kitchen window or when they were out enjoying the garden.

"In my view, I must assess the value of the loss of a working water feature based on how it would affect the average person. That is a person who is not indifferent to it or one who is especially enamoured by it.

"It is a small part of what comprises the amenity and enjoyment of the premises, but some compensation is warranted."

He ruled $400 was appropriate.

The tenants also applied for compensation for claims regarding flickering lights, a heat pump that they said was faulty, an alleged mice infestation, a broken garage door, a leak in the ensuite, a breach of quiet enjoyment and having to do garden work they deemed "forced labour".

In his decision, Armstrong said there was a lack of evidence to support those claims and they could not be proved.

Landlord's claims also dismissed

The landlords applied for compensation regarding the ensuite leak, claiming the tenants prevented them from completing repairs until after they moved out.

The tenants notified the landlord of the leak and insisted that only the landlords' qualified contractor could attend to investigate the situation and limited the visit to 30 minutes.

The landlords' builder attended and subsequently reported that there was unlikely to be a leak, and if there was, there was no urgency to deal with it. The landlords left it until after the tenants had vacated.

They then fixed the problem, including regrouting the shower and ensuite floor with waterproof grout.

The landlords claimed $4000 for the cost of the work and $10,000 in lost rent, saying the tenants had delayed the work by asserting they would not allow it to be done while they were living in the property.

Armstrong dismissed the claim, finding that the tenants had correctly reported the apparent leak and that the landlords had decided to leave the work until after the tenancy ended because it was considered non-urgent.

The landlords also claimed losses and expenses arising from the litigation, but the claim was denied.

Armstrong also ordered the tenants' $4000 bond be refunded.

It was not the first time this tenancy had ended up before the tribunal. In early 2025, the landlords claimed compensation for damage to a kitchen worktop and a contribution towards the cost of an electrician replacing lights.

The tenants claimed compensation for interference with their quiet enjoyment and for a breach of the landlords' maintenance obligations.

The tenants' claims included allegations that the lights in the premises flickered and at times failed to work altogether, and that a water feature did not function, issues that were also raised in the latest application.

At the time, all claims were dismissed.

Armstrong was able to consider the claims regarding the faulty lights and non-working water feature but only for the period ending with the previous hearing on 27 January, 2025.