What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4798740 about?

The tribunal order states: Qusay Algebawi and Enass Algebawi must pay [The landlord/s] $1,411.94

How much money was awarded in case 4798740?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,391.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4798740?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4798740?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10227723-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4798740 about?

The tribunal order states: Qusay Algebawi and Enass Algebawi must pay [The landlord/s] $1,411.94

How much money was awarded in case 4798740?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,391.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4798740?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4798740?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10227723-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4798740 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4798740 — net $1,411.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$1,391.50	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,411.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,411.94

Both parties attended the hearing.

The Tribunal had the assistance of an interpreter.

The landlord has applied for compensation for gardening work. The tenants filed an application because they said the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment while he was on holiday.

During the tenancy tenants must keep the premises reasonably tidy. The definition of premises includes gardens and other outside areas of the house. See section 40(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

Who should pay the gardening invoice?

The tenancy agreement states that the tenants are responsible for garden maintenance. The landlord sent an email to the tenants on 30 November 2023 advising that they were unhappy about the condition of the gardens. The property manager said she would be coming to “inspect” the gardens on 6 December 2023 to see if the “weeds, trees, ivy etc” had been tended to. The notice also stated that the landlord would arrange a gardener – at the tenants’ cost - if the gardens were not in a reasonable condition when inspected.

The tenant replied to this email simply saying that he was on annual leave and would return on 17 January. No garden work was done. The landlord sent follow up emails after inspecting and advised that a contractor would do the gardening and the tenant would be charged. The contractors did the garden work and the tenants were sent an invoice for over $3000. This was later revised to exclude the landlord maintenance, such as trimming trees. The revised invoice is for $1391.50, which the tenants have refused to pay.

The tenants submitted that the email sent on 30 November was the first time the landlord had raised concerns over gardening. I do not need to decide this issue because I find the email on 30 November 2023 to be a clear notice that the landlord was unhappy with the condition of the garden, that the landlord would inspect again on 6 December, and that the landlord would pay a contractor if necessary and seek reimbursement from the tenants.

The tenants also submitted that section 56 RTA requires the landlord to give the tenants a 14 day notice, however that is not correct. Section 56 requires a 14 day notice to be served if the landlord wants the tenancy to be terminated, and this was not the situation here. I find the time from Thursday 30 November 2023 to Wednesday 6 December be a reasonable time frame for the tenants to do the work, or hire someone and let the landlord know when the work would be completed.

I received submissions from both parties about fire risk at that time of the year but I haven’t relied on these because I can see from the photos that the garden was considerably overgrown and was not reasonably tidy. This was a breach by the tenants and was good enough reason to serve the notice.

The tenants further submitted that they were only responsible for 5% of the garden. It is not the percentage which is relevant to me, but whether the landlord’s photos support the claim. Unfortunately, the emails we sent to the tenants during the hearing bounced back so I haver made a decision without the tenants seeing the photos. I was satisfied I could make the decision because I am used to checking that invoices are reasonable for work carried out on behalf of landlords, and gardening claims are common.

I have carefully considered the before and after photos provided by the landlord. I find the invoice is reasonable for the work that was carried out. The amount ordered is proved.

Finally, I note the tenants provided me with an undated and unsigned email from “the neighbours” who said the gardeners were unprofessional and slow. I have not relied on this document because I have no idea who it is from.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenants submitted that there was a breach of their quiet enjoyment because the landlord sent an excessive number of emails while they were on holiday. I have read the emails provided by both parties. I do not find that the landlord was unprofessional or sent an unreasonable number of emails. This claim is dismissed. Other orders

Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

The tenants’ application for suppression is not allowed because the tenant is not the most successful party, and there is public interest in names being published when there are breaches of the RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4798740 — net $1,411.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$1,391.50	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,411.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,411.94

Order

Qusay Algebawi and Enass Algebawi must pay [The landlord/s] $1,411.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The tenants’ application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tribunal had the assistance of an interpreter.
The landlord has applied for compensation for gardening work. The tenants filed an application because they said the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment while he was on holiday.
During the tenancy tenants must keep the premises reasonably tidy. The definition of premises includes gardens and other outside areas of the house. See section 40(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

Who should pay the gardening invoice?

The tenancy agreement states that the tenants are responsible for garden maintenance. The landlord sent an email to the tenants on 30 November 2023 advising that they were unhappy about the condition of the gardens. The property manager said she would be coming to “inspect” the gardens on 6 December 2023 to see if the “weeds, trees, ivy etc” had been tended to. The notice also stated that the landlord would arrange a gardener – at the tenants’ cost - if the gardens were not in a reasonable condition when inspected.
The tenant replied to this email simply saying that he was on annual leave and would return on 17 January. No garden work was done. The landlord sent follow up emails after inspecting and advised that a contractor would do the gardening and the tenant would be charged. The contractors did the garden work and the tenants were sent an invoice for over $3000. This was later revised to exclude the landlord maintenance, such as trimming trees. The revised invoice is for $1391.50, which the tenants have refused to pay.
The tenants submitted that the email sent on 30 November was the first time the landlord had raised concerns over gardening. I do not need to decide this issue because I find the email on 30 November 2023 to be a clear notice that the landlord was unhappy with the condition of the garden, that the landlord would inspect again on 6 December, and that the landlord would pay a contractor if necessary and seek reimbursement from the tenants.
The tenants also submitted that section 56 RTA requires the landlord to give the tenants a 14 day notice, however that is not correct. Section 56 requires a 14 day notice to be served if the landlord wants the tenancy to be terminated, and this was not the situation here. I find the time from Thursday 30 November 2023 to Wednesday 6 December be a reasonable time frame for the tenants to do the work, or hire someone and let the landlord know when the work would be completed.
I received submissions from both parties about fire risk at that time of the year but I haven’t relied on these because I can see from the photos that the garden was considerably overgrown and was not reasonably tidy. This was a breach by the tenants and was good enough reason to serve the notice.
The tenants further submitted that they were only responsible for 5% of the garden. It is not the percentage which is relevant to me, but whether the landlord’s photos support the claim. Unfortunately, the emails we sent to the tenants during the hearing bounced back so I haver made a decision without the tenants seeing the photos. I was satisfied I could make the decision because I am used to checking that invoices are reasonable for work carried out on behalf of landlords, and gardening claims are common.
I have carefully considered the before and after photos provided by the landlord. I find the invoice is reasonable for the work that was carried out. The amount ordered is proved.
Finally, I note the tenants provided me with an undated and unsigned email from “the neighbours” who said the gardeners were unprofessional and slow. I have not relied on this document because I have no idea who it is from.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenants submitted that there was a breach of their quiet enjoyment because the landlord sent an excessive number of emails while they were on holiday. I have read the emails provided by both parties. I do not find that the landlord was unprofessional or sent an unreasonable number of emails. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is not allowed because the tenant is not the most successful party, and there is public interest in names being published when there are breaches of the RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4798740 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4798740 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Who should pay the gardening invoice?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Who should pay the gardening invoice?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions