What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4708953?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4708953?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4708953?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4708953?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9556761-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4708953?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4708953?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4708953?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4708953?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9556761-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

111 Budge Street, Riversdale, Blenheim 7201 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4708953 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 20 October 2023.
The tenancy of the premises at 11 Budge Street, Blenheim (“the premises”) commenced on 30 June 2022 and is current as of the date of the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord says that the tenant has breached their obligations by failing to keep the gardens at the premises reasonably tidy. Section 40(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 “(RTA”) requires a tenant to keep the premises (which includes the land) reasonably tidy.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 7 July 2023. The notice states that the tenant has not maintained the gardens to the agreed standard and requires the tenant to weed the gardens and remove lawn clippings from the property.
It is not clear to me what the reference to an “agreed standard” meant in the notice. There is only one applicable standard under the RTA and that is reasonably tidy.
The tenant accepts that they did not remove the lawn clippings, nor did they carry out weeding within the 14 day period.
What is meant by “reasonably tidy”? A reasonably tidy garden is to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider tidy. It does not mean perfect or prize winning, but not such a low standard as to suggest the property was unoccupied or a health hazard. The standard is not met where, for example, lawns are not mown. The standard is reasonably tidy, not the equivalent to the standard of the premises at the start of the tenancy or reflecting a professional standard of care during the tenancy.
Does the failure to remove the lawn clippings mean that the property is not reasonably clean and tidy? The landlord provided photos in support of the claim. The photos show what I consider to be a small mound of grass clipping in the corner of the section near a fence. The landlord confirmed that the tenants kept the lawns cut and tidy throughout the tenancy. I do not consider the mound of grass clippings to be such as to render the premises “untidy”. It may not be to the landlord’s standard, but that is not the standard required of the tenant.
Similarly, the landlord provided photos of areas of the garden which have not been weeded for some time. The photos support the proposition that weeding has not been done. I do not however consider that the weeds (which are not high in the photos) are such as to make the garden less than reasonably tidy. If left, it may be that the weeds will reach that standard, but that is not the situation as shown in the photos. The application is accordingly dismissed.
Had I reached the conclusion that the gardens were less than reasonably tidy, I would not have terminated the tenancy, as to do so in the circumstances of this case would not have made termination a proportionate response to the breach (see S.56(1)(c) RTA and Te Rangi v Housing New Zealand Corporation FN6; Studio X Limited v Mobil Oil New Zealand Limited (1996) 2 NZLR 697.
Having reached these conclusions, the tenant should be aware that a continued failure to attend to the gardens will only result in them getting into a worse condition and potentially to the stage where the Tribunal will consider them to no longer be reasonably clean and tidy. In that event, the landlord may wish to refer any future adjudicator considering the matter to this decision.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 20 October 2023.
The tenancy of the premises at 11 Budge Street, Blenheim (“the premises”) commenced on 30 June 2022 and is current as of the date of the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord says that the tenant has breached their obligations by failing to keep the gardens at the premises reasonably tidy. Section 40(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 “(RTA”) requires a tenant to keep the premises (which includes the land) reasonably tidy.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 7 July 2023. The notice states that the tenant has not maintained the gardens to the agreed standard and requires the tenant to weed the gardens and remove lawn clippings from the property.
It is not clear to me what the reference to an “agreed standard” meant in the notice. There is only one applicable standard under the RTA and that is reasonably tidy.
The tenant accepts that they did not remove the lawn clippings, nor did they carry out weeding within the 14 day period.
What is meant by “reasonably tidy”? A reasonably tidy garden is to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider tidy. It does not mean perfect or prize winning, but not such a low standard as to suggest the property was unoccupied or a health hazard. The standard is not met where, for example, lawns are not mown. The standard is reasonably tidy, not the equivalent to the standard of the premises at the start of the tenancy or reflecting a professional standard of care during the tenancy.
Does the failure to remove the lawn clippings mean that the property is not reasonably clean and tidy? The landlord provided photos in support of the claim. The photos show what I consider to be a small mound of grass clipping in the corner of the section near a fence. The landlord confirmed that the tenants kept the lawns cut and tidy throughout the tenancy. I do not consider the mound of grass clippings to be such as to render the premises “untidy”. It may not be to the landlord’s standard, but that is not the standard required of the tenant.
Similarly, the landlord provided photos of areas of the garden which have not been weeded for some time. The photos support the proposition that weeding has not been done. I do not however consider that the weeds (which are not high in the photos) are such as to make the garden less than reasonably tidy. If left, it may be that the weeds will reach that standard, but that is not the situation as shown in the photos. The application is accordingly dismissed.
Had I reached the conclusion that the gardens were less than reasonably tidy, I would not have terminated the tenancy, as to do so in the circumstances of this case would not have made termination a proportionate response to the breach (see S.56(1)(c) RTA and Te Rangi v Housing New Zealand Corporation FN6; Studio X Limited v Mobil Oil New Zealand Limited (1996) 2 NZLR 697.
Having reached these conclusions, the tenant should be aware that a continued failure to attend to the gardens will only result in them getting into a worse condition and potentially to the stage where the Tribunal will consider them to no longer be reasonably clean and tidy. In that event, the landlord may wish to refer any future adjudicator considering the matter to this decision.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4708953 — 14-day notice at 111 Budge Street, Riversdale, Blenheim 7201

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4708953 — 14-day notice at 111 Budge Street, Riversdale, Blenheim 7201

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions