- 5/5 Stars rating on Google
Exit & relocation
Automotive / trades
Mount Maunganui, Bay of Plenty
The result
paid on the landlord’s disputed end-of-lease reinstatement claims — each one answered on the merits, and none pursued after a formal dispute notice.
A late, escalating list of make-good demands met with a signed baseline, a clause-by-clause response, and a clean exit at lease expiry.
Grant Wenzlick — Penrose Motors / RS Automotive
Automotive repair & servicing (Service Provider)
11–13 Owens Place, Mount Maunganui
Exit & relocation (make-good / reinstatement dispute)
Hand the workshop back at lease end without paying for reinstatement the tenant didn't owe.
The situation
The tenant had run an automotive repair and servicing business from the same Mount Maunganui premises for close to twenty years, holding the site through successive leases and a 2020 renewal that ran to a final expiry of 31 March 2026. With a new site secured nearby, the plan was simple: finish the agreed make-good works, hand back the keys, and move on.
It didn’t stay simple. As expiry approached, the landlord’s list of required reinstatement works kept growing, and the standard being demanded kept shifting. What should have been a routine handover became a running argument over what the tenant actually owed.
What was at stake
Reinstatement claims are the classic pressure point at the end of a lease. The tenant wants to be gone; the landlord controls the sign-off. New items get raised late, old items get re-scoped to a higher standard, and a small business owner is left deciding whether to pay up or dig in — usually while trying to open somewhere new.
Here the demands stacked up across the exit: iron wall cladding to be replaced to a specific, more expensive product; a drainage channel already built but rejected; workshop floor painting; linoleum, a hole behind a shed, ceiling repairs, cleaning — several of them raised only a week or two before expiry. The landlord also signalled that the tenant would be liable for her legal costs.
Left unchallenged, that’s a bill for works the lease never required, on top of holdover exposure if the handover dragged past expiry. As the tenant put it, it felt like being at a disadvantage against a much stronger party.
What we did
Grant brought in Marcus from Proactive Property Group to steady the exit and deal with the landlord. Having sat on both sides of the table as landlord and tenant, he knew that most make-good disputes are won by pinning the argument to the documents, not by talking tougher.
Before the 2020 lease, both parties had conducted a joint inspection and signed a Make Good Agreement that identified and settled the full scope of reinstatement obligations. That document — not a fresh wishlist at exit — was the baseline. Anything not raised in it had been accepted or waived.
Each demand was measured against clause 51 of the Further Terms, which only covers damage the tenant caused after the agreed 20 July 2012 baseline condition. Several items — the linoleum, the hole behind the dangerous goods shed, the floor painting, ceiling work — either predated that baseline, were not tenant-caused, or had been expressly excluded from the 2020 agreement.
On the cladding, obtained written confirmation from the supplier that the ordered product was the closest available like-for-like match to the original — and framed the landlord’s insistence on a specific alternative as a potential unreasonable withholding of consent under the lease.
Rather than argue by email, served a formal dispute notice under clause 43.1(a), setting out the tenant’s position on each item, inviting good-faith informal resolution, and nominating the Disputes Tribunal as the efficient, cost-effective forum if needed.
When the landlord let the response deadline pass, put the tenant’s position on record: no liability accepted, the claim not being actively pursued, and all rights reserved against any attempt to revive it later.
The result
The tenant handed the premises back at lease expiry and moved on to the new site. The make-good claims that had loomed over the exit were met with a documented, clause-by-clause response — and once the dispute notice was on the table, they were not pursued.
No payment made on the reinstatement items the tenant disputed.
Each item addressed against the lease and the signed 2020 agreement.
The 2020 Make Good Agreement re-established as the scope of obligations.
The tenant's position put on the record under the lease's dispute clause.
Premises handed back by 31 March 2026 without a holdover.
Position documented to head off any later attempt to revive the claim.
The trap at the end of a lease is treating late make-good demands as facts to be paid rather than claims to be tested. Scope creeps, the standard climbs, and the tenant pays to make the argument go away.
Here every demand was checked against what the lease and the signed 2020 agreement actually required, the technical questions were settled with the supplier in writing, and the tenant’s position was put formally on the record. So the pressure came off, and the disputed works stayed the landlord’s argument to prove — not the tenant’s bill to pay.
If you're exiting a lease
A make-good demand is a claim, not an invoice. Before you agree to anything, go back to what the lease and any signed condition record actually require, get the technical questions answered in writing, and put your position on the record properly. That’s the difference between paying to end an argument and handing back the keys clean.
About the adviser
Marcus has spent 20 years acting for tenants across New Zealand and the East Coast of Australia — finding premises, negotiating leases and managing property costs across the full lease lifecycle. Having sat on both sides of the table as landlord and tenant, he negotiates commercial terms most tenants only sign once or twice in the life of their business.
More proof
A late, escalating list of make-good demands met with a signed baseline, a clause-by-clause response, and a clean exit at lease expiry.
A bigger office with more parking, a capped personal guarantee and real exit flexibility, on a lease that beat the firm’s existing landlord’s renewal offer.
Lower entry costs, rent-free and fit-out-free startup periods, and personal guarantees cut or removed, so every franchisee opened on solid footing.
The reinstatement bill is only as big as the scope you agree to. Before you commit to any make-good works, let me check what your lease actually requires — and what it doesn’t. Tell me about the exit.
