Key Takeaways
- The tenant, Bouvet, received permission from the landlord to plant her late mother’s roses along the property boundary, agreeing to return the garden to its original condition.
- At the end of the tenancy, the landlord claimed the boundary plants were dead or removed and that stones had been added where bark once lay.
- Bouvet asserted that severe flooding caused by inadequate drainage killed the plants, and she added stones to mitigate water damage; she provided photographs and text messages showing the landlord praised her garden upkeep.
- The tribunal adjudicator found Bouvet not responsible for the plant loss, citing evidence of consistent care, respect for the property, and factors beyond her control.
- Regarding the garage carpet, the landlord alleged tyre marks resulted from the tenant maneuvering around a stored treadmill; Bouvet argued the marks were normal wear from vehicle use.
- The adjudicator ruled the tyre marks and carpet wear constituted fair wear and tear, dismissing the landlord’s compensation claim.
- Consequently, the landlord’s claims were rejected, and Bouvet was awarded the full $2,400 bond.
- The decision was reported by Brianna McIlraith, a Queenstown‑based Open Justice journalist covering courts in the lower South Island.
Garden Condition at the Tenancy Start
At the beginning of Bouvet’s tenancy, the property’s boundary was lined with mature evergreen bushes. Bouvet approached the landlord with a request to plant her late mother’s roses in the same area. The landlord consented, stipulating that Bouvet must leave the garden in the same condition she found it at the start of the lease. This agreement set the baseline expectations for the garden’s upkeep and formed the core of the later dispute over whether Bouvet fulfilled her obligation to restore the original planting.
Landlord’s Allegations of Plant Damage
When the tenancy ended, the landlord told the tribunal that the plants along the fence line were either dead or had been removed. Additionally, the landlord claimed Bouvet had placed stones in a section where bark had previously been present, altering the landscape. The landlord viewed these changes as damage for which Bouvet should be held financially responsible, arguing that the tenant had failed to return the garden to its original state as required by the tenancy agreement.
Tenant’s Explanation: Flooding and Mitigation Efforts
Bouvet countered that the plants died because of severe flooding in the backyard following heavy rainfall. She stated she had repeatedly warned the landlord about inadequate drainage, which exacerbated the water accumulation. To address the flooding, Bouvet placed stones along the fence line to help divert water and protect the remaining vegetation. She submitted photographs of the flooded area after rain, as well as text‑message exchanges in which the landlord praised her for keeping the property in an immaculate condition, supporting her claim that she acted responsibly under difficult circumstances.
Evidence of Tenant’s Gardening Skill and Care
Tribunal adjudicator Aneterea Andrew Aiolupotea noted that Bouvet provided photographs showing she was a prize‑winning gardener and that other sections of the garden remained well maintained. The adjudicator highlighted that Bouvet had sought permission before planting the roses, demonstrating a respectful and considerate attitude toward the landlord’s property. These facts reinforced the tribunal’s view that Bouvet had consistently attended to the garden and acted in good faith throughout the tenancy.
Adjudicator’s Ruling on Plant Responsibility
Aiolupotea concluded that Bouvet was not responsible for the death or removal of the boundary plants. The adjudicator accepted that the tenant would have taken utmost care to ensure her mother’s roses flourished, but that factors beyond her control—namely the severe flooding and inadequate drainage—prevented success. The overall condition of the garden, coupled with Bouvet’s proactive communication and mitigation efforts, indicated she had paid consistent attention and respect for the property, leading to the dismissal of the landlord’s claim regarding the plants.
Garage Carpet Damage Allegations
Separately, the landlord sought compensation for damage to the garage carpet, alleging that tyre marks resulted from Bouvet repeatedly maneuvering her vehicle to avoid a treadmill stored against the wall. The landlord presented a repair company’s report stating the carpet had been excessively worn due to steering movements when vehicles entered and exited the garage. The landlord argued that, absent the treadmill, there would have been less turning of the wheels and thus less wear, and noted that a previous tenant had not left similar damage.
Tenant’s Defence of Normal Wear and Tear
Bouvet argued that the garage was intended for vehicle storage and that tyre marks on the carpet were consistent with normal use and fair wear and tear. She maintained that the treadmill’s presence did not constitute an abnormal condition requiring her to alter her driving patterns beyond what would be expected in a typical garage setting. The tribunal considered the garage’s ordinary purpose and the evidence presented by both parties.
Adjudicator’s Decision on Garage Wear
Aiolupotea agreed with Bouvet, finding that she used the garage for its ordinary purpose and did not subject it to any use beyond what would reasonably be expected. The adjudicator determined that the tyre marks and wear to the garage floor were fair wear and tear, thereby dismissing the landlord’s claim for compensation. Consequently, the landlord’s request for monetary redress regarding the garage carpet was rejected.
Outcome and Bond Refund
With both the plant‑damage and garage‑carpet claims dismissed, the tribunal ordered that Bouvet receive the full return of her $2,400 bond. The decision underscored the tribunal’s emphasis on the tenant’s diligent communication, proactive mitigation of flooding, and respectful adherence to the landlord’s conditions, while recognizing that certain damages resulted from uncontrollable environmental factors rather than tenant negligence.
About the Reporter
Brianna McIlraith is a Queenstown‑based reporter for Open Justice, covering courts in the lower South Island. She has been a journalist since 2018 and maintains a strong interest in business and financial journalism, bringing detailed and accurate reporting to cases such as this one.