What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5191452?

The tribunal order states: Anneline Govender and Bradley Govender must pay Charles Arymowicz and

How much money was awarded in case 5191452?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5191452?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5191452?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11959498-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5191452?

The tribunal order states: Anneline Govender and Bradley Govender must pay Charles Arymowicz and

How much money was awarded in case 5191452?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5191452?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5191452?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11959498-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Redcoat Place, Cockle Bay, Auckland 2014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5191452 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5191452 — net $527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Garden damage	$500.00	Garden damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$527.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$527.00

Order

Anneline Govender and Bradley Govender must pay Charles Arymowicz and Jacqueline Green $527.00 immediately, being as set out in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord applied for compensation and exemplary damages in relation to trees that the tenant has cut down and pruned.
The damage occurred approximately two weeks after the tenancy commenced in May 2023. The landlord was not able to produce a copy of the signed tenancy agreement but did produce a seven-page schedule (“Schedule A”) to the agreement.
The schedule states on page one that the landlord will pay for maintenance of the garden other than grass cutting and the vegetable bed. On page 5 paragraph 19 states, “Gardening. The tenant shall cut the grass at least every three weeks. Landlord prefers that grass clippings be left on the lawn. Tenant or gardener WILL NOT use a whipper- snapper in the garden. In particular the trunks of the trees and shrubs that have been planted shall not be whipper-snapped. Tenant or gardener shall not use herbicide in the garden without Landlord’s specific written consent. However, Landlord may use herbicide. Tenant will water the garden monthly in each of December, January, February and March for one hour each time in each of the front and back. Priority shall be given to the young fruit trees, the camelias, hibiscus and bromeliads. The grass does not need to be watered. Landlord may water in lieu of Tenant using house water at Tenant’s expense. Tenant and Landlord shall share the fruit from the trees on the property. Tenant shall not prune or remove any trees or shrubbery without Landlord’s express written consent.”
When asked about the maintenance that has been carried out on the garden the landlord advised not much maintenance was required but the hedge at the front would be cut twice a year and there would be some weeding. The landlord said that there were two types of gardening, the French style where plants were severely pruned and the English style where plants are left to grown. The landlord prefers the English style.
The landlord produced an arborist report prepared by Allan Holmes of Greenscene NZ Ltd. The report is dated 22 December 2023.
There are two trees that were cut down by the arborist employed by the tenants. They were a Dracaena and an Umbrella Tree. The arborist also carried out pruning, particular to a Puriri tree which is in the neighbour’s section but where some branches grew on to this section.
The Dracaena tree was located just in front of the deck which has now been extended over the area where the tree was located. The landlord says that the tree was at waist height, and he would have removed it when the deck was extended. The tenant says that the tree was higher than the deck which the landlord said was 10 foot high. There is a photograph from 2022 showing that the tree was the height described by the tenant.
The landlord says that the Umbrella Tree was espaliered (grown against walls or free standing on wires) against the garage wall. There is no photograph of this tree other than the 2022 photograph showing that it was around the height of the two-storey home. I note that this tree has begun to grow back as evidenced by the photograph taken by the landlord on the day before the hearing.
The tenant complained that the trees which were removed prevented them from accessing the rear of the section through the gate. There is no evidence that the tenant had asked the landlord to maintain the trees.
The tenant said that the Puriri tree was pruned because it prevented them from using the garage. The tree appears to have been heavily pruned, but I note that this tree has also begun to regrow as can be seen in the photographs taken on 9 June 2025.
The tenant produced evidence that the landlord has failed to maintain the garden and trees in other areas of the garden. I note that the concrete path on the opposite side of the house is obstructed by a ginger plant and a lavender bush.
The landlord says that the ginger plant has been knocked down by the rain and there is a branch of lavender over the path.
The tenant did not recall the terms of the agreement contained in the schedule which states that pruning should only be carried out with the landlord’s express consent. When the tenant learnt that this was prevented in the terms of the agreement, they ceased any further pruning and apologised to the landlord. The tenant had not carried out any gardening work since May 2023.
It is my view that if the landlord had maintained the trees, then it is unlikely that the tenant would have carried out any gardening work which the schedule says is to be paid for by the landlord. However, the tenant should have obtained the consent of the landlord before removing trees.
On the evidence before me the landlord has not suffered as much loss as suggested in the arborist’s report. The Umbrella Tree is regrowing, and it is possible that the Dracaena tree would be much smaller if transplanted by the landlord as he suggests would have happened.
On the evidence I consider that the landlord should be compensated for the trees that were cut down. I consider $500.00 to be a reasonable amount. As I have awarded compensation there will be no award for exemplary damages. Even if compensation had not been granted the tenant’s did not intend to breach the tenancy agreement as is required by section 109(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Because Charles Arymowicz, Jacqueline Green has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5191452 — net $527.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Garden damage	$500.00	Garden damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$527.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$527.00

Order

Anneline Govender and Bradley Govender must pay Charles Arymowicz and Jacqueline Green $527.00 immediately, being as set out in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord applied for compensation and exemplary damages in relation to trees that the tenant has cut down and pruned.
The damage occurred approximately two weeks after the tenancy commenced in May 2023. The landlord was not able to produce a copy of the signed tenancy agreement but did produce a seven-page schedule (“Schedule A”) to the agreement.
The schedule states on page one that the landlord will pay for maintenance of the garden other than grass cutting and the vegetable bed. On page 5 paragraph 19 states, “Gardening. The tenant shall cut the grass at least every three weeks. Landlord prefers that grass clippings be left on the lawn. Tenant or gardener WILL NOT use a whipper- snapper in the garden. In particular the trunks of the trees and shrubs that have been planted shall not be whipper-snapped. Tenant or gardener shall not use herbicide in the garden without Landlord’s specific written consent. However, Landlord may use herbicide. Tenant will water the garden monthly in each of December, January, February and March for one hour each time in each of the front and back. Priority shall be given to the young fruit trees, the camelias, hibiscus and bromeliads. The grass does not need to be watered. Landlord may water in lieu of Tenant using house water at Tenant’s expense. Tenant and Landlord shall share the fruit from the trees on the property. Tenant shall not prune or remove any trees or shrubbery without Landlord’s express written consent.”
When asked about the maintenance that has been carried out on the garden the landlord advised not much maintenance was required but the hedge at the front would be cut twice a year and there would be some weeding. The landlord said that there were two types of gardening, the French style where plants were severely pruned and the English style where plants are left to grown. The landlord prefers the English style.
The landlord produced an arborist report prepared by Allan Holmes of Greenscene NZ Ltd. The report is dated 22 December 2023.
There are two trees that were cut down by the arborist employed by the tenants. They were a Dracaena and an Umbrella Tree. The arborist also carried out pruning, particular to a Puriri tree which is in the neighbour’s section but where some branches grew on to this section.
The Dracaena tree was located just in front of the deck which has now been extended over the area where the tree was located. The landlord says that the tree was at waist height, and he would have removed it when the deck was extended. The tenant says that the tree was higher than the deck which the landlord said was 10 foot high. There is a photograph from 2022 showing that the tree was the height described by the tenant.
The landlord says that the Umbrella Tree was espaliered (grown against walls or free standing on wires) against the garage wall. There is no photograph of this tree other than the 2022 photograph showing that it was around the height of the two-storey home. I note that this tree has begun to grow back as evidenced by the photograph taken by the landlord on the day before the hearing.
The tenant complained that the trees which were removed prevented them from accessing the rear of the section through the gate. There is no evidence that the tenant had asked the landlord to maintain the trees.
The tenant said that the Puriri tree was pruned because it prevented them from using the garage. The tree appears to have been heavily pruned, but I note that this tree has also begun to regrow as can be seen in the photographs taken on 9 June 2025.
The tenant produced evidence that the landlord has failed to maintain the garden and trees in other areas of the garden. I note that the concrete path on the opposite side of the house is obstructed by a ginger plant and a lavender bush.
The landlord says that the ginger plant has been knocked down by the rain and there is a branch of lavender over the path.
The tenant did not recall the terms of the agreement contained in the schedule which states that pruning should only be carried out with the landlord’s express consent. When the tenant learnt that this was prevented in the terms of the agreement, they ceased any further pruning and apologised to the landlord. The tenant had not carried out any gardening work since May 2023.
It is my view that if the landlord had maintained the trees, then it is unlikely that the tenant would have carried out any gardening work which the schedule says is to be paid for by the landlord. However, the tenant should have obtained the consent of the landlord before removing trees.
On the evidence before me the landlord has not suffered as much loss as suggested in the arborist’s report. The Umbrella Tree is regrowing, and it is possible that the Dracaena tree would be much smaller if transplanted by the landlord as he suggests would have happened.
On the evidence I consider that the landlord should be compensated for the trees that were cut down. I consider $500.00 to be a reasonable amount. As I have awarded compensation there will be no award for exemplary damages. Even if compensation had not been granted the tenant’s did not intend to breach the tenancy agreement as is required by section 109(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Because Charles Arymowicz, Jacqueline Green has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5191452 — Property damage at 3 Redcoat Place, Cockle Bay, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5191452 — Property damage at 3 Redcoat Place, Cockle Bay, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions