A couple has been awarded $1275 in damages after complaining their newly laid artificial turf was “too shiny”.

That shiny lawn now has to be ripped up and the turf must be laid down again after the Disputes Tribunal found the homeowners were entitled to a job done properly.

In the decision released last month, it said the couple, who are not named, accepted a quote in September last year from an installer for landscaping work and the installation of artificial turf from a recommended supplier.

They went ahead and bought 13 (lineal) metres for $2272, which the installer then laid.

After the job was done, the couple said they were unhappy with the shiny appearance of the turf, and claimed it should have been laid in the opposite direction so the rough or strand side, rather than the shiny side, faced their predominant view.

They declined to pay the installation cost and claimed $6000 in damages from the installer, despite his view that utilising “sand and brooming” would be a sufficient way to fix the problem.

One of the company’s installers said the direction the turf was laid did not make a big difference and one side was a bit lighter.

However, the tribunal found the failure could not be properly rectified by sanding and brooming, which would only be a temporary partial solution.

The installation manager from the firm that provided the turf gave evidence that all synthetic turf products had the same issue of needing to be laid in the direction which would give the best appeal and said there were tutorials online for novice installers.

The couple said they raised the issue of direction when the turf was first unrolled before it was cut.

However, the installer, who was also not named in the decision, said the issue was not raised until after the turf was cut into shape.

“I consider that it does not matter when [the couple] raised the issue, because a reasonable installer of artificial turf would have proactively asked the consumers their preference for the direction, given the aesthetic purpose of the product and the likelihood that consumers would have a preference,” tribunal referee Elizabeth Paton-Simpson said in her decision.

She said the installer should have consulted with the couple about which way they wanted the turf laid and explained the difference, even if they hadn’t raised this point themselves.

“I therefore find that [the installer] failed to install the turf with reasonable care and skill.”

Paton-Simpson said the decision meant the turf would have to be removed and new turf would have to be laid, which had been quoted at $5325 for supply and installation.

The unpaid balance of $4000 owed to the installer was deducted from the new quote, which left the sum payable in damages at $1275.

The case followed a successful $8500 claim last year by a homeowner against the gardener she’d hired, who put down a hedge trimmer on the newly installed artificial lawn and melted it.

Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.