What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5230411 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5230411?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5230411?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5230411?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12133018-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5230411 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5230411?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5230411?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5230411?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12133018-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

1079 Tennent Drive, Linton, RD 2, Palmerston North 4472 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5230411 — Property damage

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for a refund of $700 of the tenant’s bond on the basis that she is liable for the cost of replacement shrubs/trees along the driveway.

A landscaper has said the tress have likely died because of grass clippings the tenant placed around their bases during the tenancy. The report explains that mixing the grass clippings with other organic matter would not cause damage but on their own the fresh clippings might.

The tenant says the trees that died were poorly or struggling from the outset, her partner mowed the lawns, and only once did he put grass clippings around them; that was the final mow a few days before the tenancy ended. On other occasions he put the clippings further away. The landlord’s lived very close by and inspected the trees on a number of occasions, without raising issues.

Tenants are liable for damage that occurs during the tenancy. This is established. The pre tenancy photos do not show any dead trees and the end of tenancy photos do.

Once it is established that the damage occurred during the tenancy, tenants are liable to pay reasonable compensation if the damage was caused by either their careless, negligent or intentional actions or the actions of their guests. See s 40 (2) RTA

The parties agree that it is the issue of whether carelessness has caused the damage that must be resolved. In other words, they agree it is not intentional or negligent actions.

The landlord’s insurance policy states that the landlord has insurance, and the excess is $400. This means that even if carelessness is established the tenant’s liability will be limited to the insurance excess (as this is less than 4 weeks rent which is the upper limit if the landlord does not have insurance). That would apply whether the landlord chose to claim insurance or not.

I am not satisfied that it was careless to place the grass clippings around the base of the trees. It is certainly not common knowledge that this might damage young shrubs or trees. It is in fact a common practise to do this to provide mulch or compost.

If a landlord is aware that grass clippings might damage particular shrubs then they can add a clause to a tenancy agreement, specifically advising the tenants not to do this and that they will or might be liable for compensation if they do.

In the absence of this clause then I am not satisfied that it is the tenant (or her partner’s) careless actions that have caused the damage, and the claim is dismissed.

It follows that the tenant’s remaining bond is to be refunded to her and an order will be sent to the bond centre to facilitate this.

The order is to be published and the parties’ names are to be supressed. As this is essentially a bond dispute, one that the landlord was entitled to ask the Tribunal to resolve although ultimately not successful, there is little public interest in publishing either name.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $700.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for a refund of $700 of the tenant’s bond on the basis that she is liable for the cost of replacement shrubs/trees along the driveway.
A landscaper has said the tress have likely died because of grass clippings the tenant placed around their bases during the tenancy. The report explains that mixing the grass clippings with other organic matter would not cause damage but on their own the fresh clippings might.
The tenant says the trees that died were poorly or struggling from the outset, her partner mowed the lawns, and only once did he put grass clippings around them; that was the final mow a few days before the tenancy ended. On other occasions he put the clippings further away. The landlord’s lived very close by and inspected the trees on a number of occasions, without raising issues.
Tenants are liable for damage that occurs during the tenancy. This is established. The pre tenancy photos do not show any dead trees and the end of tenancy photos do.
Once it is established that the damage occurred during the tenancy, tenants are liable to pay reasonable compensation if the damage was caused by either their careless, negligent or intentional actions or the actions of their guests. See s 40 (2) RTA
The parties agree that it is the issue of whether carelessness has caused the damage that must be resolved. In other words, they agree it is not intentional or negligent actions.
The landlord’s insurance policy states that the landlord has insurance, and the excess is $400. This means that even if carelessness is established the tenant’s liability will be limited to the insurance excess (as this is less than 4 weeks rent which is the upper limit if the landlord does not have insurance). That would apply whether the landlord chose to claim insurance or not.
I am not satisfied that it was careless to place the grass clippings around the base of the trees. It is certainly not common knowledge that this might damage young shrubs or trees. It is in fact a common practise to do this to provide mulch or compost.
If a landlord is aware that grass clippings might damage particular shrubs then they can add a clause to a tenancy agreement, specifically advising the tenants not to do this and that they will or might be liable for compensation if they do.
In the absence of this clause then I am not satisfied that it is the tenant (or her partner’s) careless actions that have caused the damage, and the claim is dismissed.
It follows that the tenant’s remaining bond is to be refunded to her and an order will be sent to the bond centre to facilitate this.
The order is to be published and the parties’ names are to be supressed. As this is essentially a bond dispute, one that the landlord was entitled to ask the Tribunal to resolve although ultimately not successful, there is little public interest in publishing either name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5230411 — Property damage at 1079 Tennent Drive, Linton, RD 2, Palmerston North 4472

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5230411 — Property damage at 1079 Tennent Drive, Linton, RD 2, Palmerston North 4472

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