What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4990548 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4990548?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4990548?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4990548?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11117161-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4990548 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4990548?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4990548?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4990548?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11117161-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

3 Mabel Crescent, Halswell, Christchurch 8025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4990548 — Cleanliness

Order

The application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The respondent/s] immediately.
The identifying details of the tenants are to be suppressed from the published order.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Brown and Ms Herring represented the landlord.
The landlord on instructions from the owner is seeking reimbursement of the quoted cost to repair the lawn of $2,677.75. They say: a. The tenancy agreement states that the tenants were to keep the lawns and gardens weeded and in a generally tidy condition. b. The tenants did not do this and have weed sprayed the lawn which has killed it all off. c. As a result, they have had to clear off the dead grass and resow it. d. It was in good condition at the start of the tenancy. e. The tenants were told a number of times during the tenancy to mow the lawns and it is as a result of their failure to do so that the work was required.
The tenants dispute the claim and say that the lawn was not in a mowable state. Their evidence is that the grounds around the home were undeveloped at the commencement of the tenancy as this was a new build. They were told that the grounds would be developed and when they were they would be responsible for keeping them reasonably tidy, i.e. mowing and killing the weeds. The rent was reduced because of the state of the grounds.
The front section of the house was developed several months into the tenancy, and they hired a garden specialist to attend to that area over the remainder of their tenure. The back section however was never developed and remained in the state it was during the build. They could not mow the back section because the ground was full of weeds and building materials. It was hazardous and as such they could not fully use it.
However, when it got very overgrown the owner told them they needed to cut the grass. They therefore had their garden specialist attempt a mow with a commercial mower and advise them. He gave evidence at the hearing and said: a. The ground was unmowable for a residential lawnmower and a commercial mower. It was full of weeds and uncultivated land which was uneven and had building materials such as nails and concrete throughout. b. He cut it once however it was unsafe to mow it again, even for him, a professional with a commercial mower. c. The only thing they could do is weed spray the area so it could be developed. d. He demonstrated that the photos the owner had taken prior to the tenancy show uncultivated land that simply has paddock grass in it. He said it was not possible for normal grass to grow in these conditions. The law & discussion
In the Tenancy Tribunal, applicants are required to establish the case to the civil standard of “balance of probabilities”. This means that they must demonstrate that the situation is more likely than not to be as they argue or allege.
At the end of a tenancy a tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy; essentially as they found it. see section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant's statutory obligation is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also a tenant, generally, should not be expected to keep the premises any tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
In this situation the evidence has not established that the lawns were in a reasonable condition at the commencement of the tenancy, quite the opposite. I accept the evidence that the grounds of this new build were yet to be landscaped/developed when the tenants moved in but there was an intention to do so. For some reason the front was done and not the rear of the section.
It is simply not reasonable to expect a tenant to rectify something that was not in a good standard at the beginning, nor to mow a lawn that is not safely mowable. I accept the garden specialist’s evidence that the lawn could not be mowed by a standard mower, and it was dangerous to try. I also accept his evidence that these tenants paid a lot to attempt to keep this section well maintained, over and above their legal obligation.
Accordingly, as the claim has not been proven it is dismissed and the bond is to be returned to the tenants immediately.
As the tenants were successful in defending this claim, I approve their application for suppression pursuant to section 95A of the RTA.

Order

The application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The respondent/s] immediately.
The identifying details of the tenants are to be suppressed from the published order.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Brown and Ms Herring represented the landlord.
The landlord on instructions from the owner is seeking reimbursement of the quoted cost to repair the lawn of $2,677.75. They say: a. The tenancy agreement states that the tenants were to keep the lawns and gardens weeded and in a generally tidy condition. b. The tenants did not do this and have weed sprayed the lawn which has killed it all off. c. As a result, they have had to clear off the dead grass and resow it. d. It was in good condition at the start of the tenancy. e. The tenants were told a number of times during the tenancy to mow the lawns and it is as a result of their failure to do so that the work was required.
The tenants dispute the claim and say that the lawn was not in a mowable state. Their evidence is that the grounds around the home were undeveloped at the commencement of the tenancy as this was a new build. They were told that the grounds would be developed and when they were they would be responsible for keeping them reasonably tidy, i.e. mowing and killing the weeds. The rent was reduced because of the state of the grounds.
The front section of the house was developed several months into the tenancy, and they hired a garden specialist to attend to that area over the remainder of their tenure. The back section however was never developed and remained in the state it was during the build. They could not mow the back section because the ground was full of weeds and building materials. It was hazardous and as such they could not fully use it.
However, when it got very overgrown the owner told them they needed to cut the grass. They therefore had their garden specialist attempt a mow with a commercial mower and advise them. He gave evidence at the hearing and said: a. The ground was unmowable for a residential lawnmower and a commercial mower. It was full of weeds and uncultivated land which was uneven and had building materials such as nails and concrete throughout. b. He cut it once however it was unsafe to mow it again, even for him, a professional with a commercial mower. c. The only thing they could do is weed spray the area so it could be developed. d. He demonstrated that the photos the owner had taken prior to the tenancy show uncultivated land that simply has paddock grass in it. He said it was not possible for normal grass to grow in these conditions. The law & discussion
In the Tenancy Tribunal, applicants are required to establish the case to the civil standard of “balance of probabilities”. This means that they must demonstrate that the situation is more likely than not to be as they argue or allege.
At the end of a tenancy a tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy; essentially as they found it. see section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant's statutory obligation is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also a tenant, generally, should not be expected to keep the premises any tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
In this situation the evidence has not established that the lawns were in a reasonable condition at the commencement of the tenancy, quite the opposite. I accept the evidence that the grounds of this new build were yet to be landscaped/developed when the tenants moved in but there was an intention to do so. For some reason the front was done and not the rear of the section.
It is simply not reasonable to expect a tenant to rectify something that was not in a good standard at the beginning, nor to mow a lawn that is not safely mowable. I accept the garden specialist’s evidence that the lawn could not be mowed by a standard mower, and it was dangerous to try. I also accept his evidence that these tenants paid a lot to attempt to keep this section well maintained, over and above their legal obligation.
Accordingly, as the claim has not been proven it is dismissed and the bond is to be returned to the tenants immediately.
As the tenants were successful in defending this claim, I approve their application for suppression pursuant to section 95A of the RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4990548 — Cleanliness at 3 Mabel Crescent, Halswell, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4990548 — Cleanliness at 3 Mabel Crescent, Halswell, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions