Is a furnished rental a good idea?
By Nash Varghese. Published on 16/09/2025.
Here’s the thing about furnished rentals: what feels like convenience at move-in can morph into cost and compliance at the first breakdown. New Zealand’s Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) is deliberately simple on this point: if a landlord supplies it, the landlord must keep it working. That obligation sits alongside the broader duty to “provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair”—and it covers the chattels you choose to leave for a tenant’s use.
Many furnished lets happen by accident, not design. A job offer in another city lands on a Friday; by Monday the house is on the rental market—with beds, couches, a TV and the “good” dining table still in place. Others are half-furnished almost by habit: a landlord leaves the fridge and washing machine to “help” the next occupant. The law, however, doesn’t grade good intentions. If the tenancy agreement lists an appliance or piece of furniture, you’re on the hook to repair or replace it when it fails through ordinary use. That’s not folklore; it’s how Tenancy Services frames damage and repairs, explicitly noting tenants aren’t responsible for normal “fair wear and tear” to the property or any chattels provided by the landlord.
What, then, counts as “fair wear and tear”? The official guidance is pragmatic: the gradual deterioration that occurs with normal living, which a tenant isn’t liable for. In practice, that means the scratched coffee table, the dinged dining chair and the frying pan that has lost its non-stick are costs the landlord should anticipate over time. It’s precisely why most investment properties in New Zealand are let unfurnished: fewer moving parts, fewer disputes, and a clearer line between tenant damage and inevitable depreciation.
Whiteware is where sentiment collides with statute. Leaving a spare fridge or washer can boost appeal, but it also imports an unbudgeted maintenance stream. Once listed in the agreement, it becomes part of the landlord’s repair obligations. (For avoidance of doubt: tenancy terms can’t contract out of the Act—unreasonable conditions are unenforceable.) If you do include chattels, spell them out in the agreement and keep a dated, photo-rich inventory so “what was provided” is uncontested later.
Dishwashers are a useful exception that proves the rule. They’re a tenant-pleaser and, crucially, relatively cheap to replace compared with big-ticket whiteware. Suppliers such as Trade Depot routinely list freestanding units in the $450–$500 bracket (prices often shown GST-inclusive), which is a manageable hit if one dies mid-tenancy.
Beds and mattresses, by contrast, are a hygiene headache masquerading as a convenience. Mattresses accumulate fluids, odours and—on bad days—bed bugs. Landlords must ensure a rental is free of pests at the start of the tenancy and maintain the property to help prevent infestations. Re-using or storing mattresses between tenancies raises both cleanliness questions and dispute risk—exactly the sort of avoidable friction “unfurnished” is designed to minimise.
Cutlery, crockery and the “miscellaneous drawer” introduce the same logic at a smaller scale. Forks, knives, cups and plates are chattels too; their abrasion, chips and attrition are classic fair wear and tear. If you supply them, expect to replace them regularly—or to absorb the cost at exit rather than chase tenants over mismatched mugs. Again, the easiest way to win this game is not to play it: leave the smallwares to tenants unless you are running a short-stay or corporate-let model where inclusive furnishing is core to the product.
So how should a landlord decide?
Let purpose drive the spec. If you’re relocating abruptly and plan to re-occupy within 6–12 months, a furnished or partly furnished tenancy may be rational. Price the rent accordingly and accept accelerated wear as a cost of liquidity. If your horizon is multi-year, unfurnished almost always reduces lifecycle cost and conflict. (Either way, record every chattel in the written tenancy agreement.)
Apply the “repair test.” Only leave items you’re willing to fix fast. For many, that list is: heat source, curtains/blinds and—optionally—dishwasher; not: fridge, washer/dryer, beds, couches. The repair duty is statutory, not optional.
Avoid mattresses. Full stop. The combination of hygiene risk and pest-prevention obligations makes them more trouble than they’re worth for standard residential tenancies.
If furnishing, professionalise it. Create a chattel register with photos; set a refresh budget for soft furnishings; and insure appropriately. When wear is “fair”, treat it as an operating expense, not a dispute.
The upshot is not anti-tenant; it’s pro-clarity. Unfurnished tenancies let households make a home with their own goods, and they give landlords a cleaner compliance line under the RTA. Where you do furnish, do it deliberately, document it meticulously and budget for repairs—because the law expects you to maintain what you provide, and the Tribunal will look to the agreement and the inventory when things go wrong.
How Pride Property can help? At Pride, we keep landlords out of avoidable disputes. We’ll structure your tenancy agreement, build a defensible chattel inventory, and set a maintenance plan that aligns with your risk appetite (including sensible inclusions like a mid-range dishwasher and exclusions like mattresses). If you’re weighing furnished vs unfurnished for a Southland property, we’ll model the likely rent premium against repair exposure—so you choose with eyes open.