To think we shouldn't have to trim the hedges

[tulippa]

We've been renting a property that has front and back gardens bordered by high hedges with some further tall standalone hedges/shrubs on the lawn.

We have paid twice to get the hedges trimmed during our 18 months in the property. The landlord has not supplied any equipment to cut hedges or ladders which would be needed as they're quite tall and we had to buy our own lawnmower when we moved in. Recently, DH has found advice online which suggests that cutting hedges is not a tenant's responsibility in the same way that mowing the lawn is. The landlord messaged us at the weekend asking us to cut the hedges (they're not actually looking too bad at the moment) saying now would be a good time as they don't have any leaves on.

DH explained the advice he had found, that we did not want to cause any confrontation but it's not our responsibility to do this. It's surely a bit like getting the gutters cleaned or the boiler serviced. Regular maintenance rather than general frequent upkeep. The landlord has replied saying that it is our responsibility and if we don't want to do it ourselves, we should pay someone. So we are at a stalemate. The landlord has form for digging his heels in about certain things.

Does anyone know what we should do? Is there any organisation who can mediate with this sort of thing? Or do we have to fork out for the hedges?

You must be fucking kidding all of us. Thank god you're not a landlord. You sound awful.

The landlord next door has recently cut their hedge right down. They were advised by their letting agent that if the tennant got injured cutting it back that they could sue. I don't know how factually correct this is but they didn't want to take any chances.

Completely agree with this. Text the LL these questions - they’re perfectly reasonable and will give him pause for thought.

Also it is reasonably foreseeable that a tenant without the right tools or training could injure themselves working at height fulfilling the landlord’s instructions. In that case he’d better have his Landlord’s insurance up to date to deal with your potential injury claim.

You can “completely agree” with whatever nonsense you fancy. It’s still incorrect. OP is responsible for ensuring that the hedges are maintained throughout the tenancy in the condition they were at the start of the tenancy. That’s what the contract states and there’s no superseding statute or case law.

It is black and white, case closed and dead set. OP is responsible here. If the contract said nothing then she might not have to, it’s a grey area, but the contract says she has to and she has been doing it so (even in the very unlikely event she managed to argue that the standard form wording is unclear (it’s not)), she agreed by conduct to maintain the hedges. She has absolutely no case at all whatsoever or even slightly. None. At all.

The reality of the situation is that, regardless of whatever people on mumsnet want the answer to be, OP is actually responsible in law for maintaining those hedges.

I can't comment on whose responsibility it is, but I wanted to pass on some information from a lecturer at Sparsholt Agricultural College.

If you cut your hedges in a specific time window (from 23 July to 23 August) the light levels are such that regrowth isn't stimulated as it would otherwise be. As a result you only need to cut them once a year.

I've been doing this for years now and it absolutely works. You can thank me later 😁

Sorry Chickenly - Landlords cannot contract their way out of common law responsibilities despite your blather. If the clause puts the tenant in danger, compounded by the landlord’s insistence that the tenant complies without providing training or equipment, then the landlord would be acting negligently and common law would supersede the contractual clause.

Furthermore the clause in question is ambiguous - there is no mention of height restrictions or the tenant’s responsibility to hire expert contractors, so the contract is not clear cut at all.

It’s a grey area OP…depends how much you want to stay at the property and how much you can be bothered with the hassle of arguing. However if you wanted to challenge this, I’d suggest seeking advice first.

Certainly don’t rely on posters like @Chickenly who pretend to be knowledgeable but show their ignorance in their post. This sentence “That’s what the contract states and there’s no superseding statute or case law” is complete nonsense, and they are muddling up contract law, statute and common law (precedent) to the extent it doesn’t make any sense. According to Chickenly, anyone could bung any old madness into a contract and it would still be lawful. So if I put in a contract clause insisting that you shoot out car tyres with a machine gun every day at dawn from your window, that would be perfectly fine apparently. Sheesh.

Personally I couldn’t be bothered to fight. However that doesn’t stop me getting irritated by pound shop experts pretending to know what they’re talking about.

It’s not a common law responsibility. 🙄

If you’d bothered to read what I wrote then you’d have saved yourself a lot of time writing a long, irrelevant and incorrect response.

I’m a lawyer. I’m not remotely confused, but you appear to be. Do you not know what “supersedes” means?

The contract says it’s OP’s obligation - it didn’t need to tell her how to fulfil it in order to avoid being ambiguous. Frankly, it doesn’t matter whether she pays someone or does it herself or anything else. There is no other law saying that it’s not her responsibility. There’s no common law responsibility to be contracted out of. If you think there is, could you post a link?

The clause doesn’t put the tenant in danger. If OP doesn’t feel she can safely cut the hedges herself then she can pay a professional. What danger do you think she’s in?! If the contract stated that OP must, personally, cut the hedges then she’d have an argument that it’s an unfair contract term (nothing to do with negligence from the landlord though, it would be contract issue not a tort issue).

You are chatting absolute nonsense - and you know you are 😂

Bad luck Chickenly - I’m a liability claims inspector who investigates public, products and employer’s liability claims for a global insurer and negotiates settlements with the third party representatives (sometimes including solicitors who should really stick to conveyancing or probate rather opining on personal injury claims).

A previous poster rightly raised working at height regulations, training and equipment. Is the tenant supposed to be an expert in this field? How do they judge what is/is not a safe method of work? Does the contract stipulate at what height/complexity they should call in contractors? If the tenant fell from a platform having been nagged repeatedly to trim the landlord’s high hedge but without any expertise to judge the risk, no specialist equipment nor any guidance on when to call in professionals, the potential negligence of the landlord would of course be a factor in determining liability as well as possible contributory negligence from the tenant. Whatever the sacred contract might say.

You’re right though that I shouldn’t waste my time on this discussion - I spend enough time investigating liability and negotiating settlements in my day job, I’m not sure why I’m bothering to debate with yet another befuddled solicitor for free.

Sorry for the derail OP, it’s crappy from the landlord but you risk your good relationship with them if you push back so probably worth paying the experts if you want to stay there longer term. (Unless you fancy balancing over the hedge then breaking your wrist and making a claim - not recommended!).

Why are you all arguing over the OP going up a ladder 😅 there are actual professionals that cut hedges, their numbers are freely available on the Internet.

True @Greatly, many would call in professionals, but many would try to do the job themselves to save money, or because they fancy a DIY challenge (my dad). The lack of clarity in the contract about who should carry out work at height doesn’t help.
(I’ll stop arguing about it now - got to go and look into allegations of dangerous grapes on a supermarket floor. Shocking how many people slip on the squashy devils when out shopping. Beware the grapes of wrath!).

Two different issues here.

One is landlord's health and safety duties which seem to strongly suggest that he or she would be failing in their duty of care to allow a tenant to do dangerous work at height without proper training or ensuring that a suitably trained and competent contractor was to undertake the work. Seem fairly unambiguous, although no idea on the case law.

The second is who pays for it. I believe that it is entirely reasonable for a landlord and tenant to agree on a contract that the tenant would be responsible for the cost of of certain upkeep as specified in the contract.

So, my view is OP certainly doesn't have to do anything dangerous themselves but they could well be on the hook for paying for a contractor to do it.

It's a boundary..... Tenants are not responsible for paying for boundary maintenance.

I really do despair sometimes.

If the landlord want this maintained then he pays to have them cut to a reasonable size and then provides the tools I. E hedgestrimmer and collection of garden waste.

I'd love to take you to court with a LL..... Fairly certain the law would be on my side in a liability case if I fell off a ladder and broke my back.

It definitely wouldn’t be on your side. You’re a grown adult in your own home using your own ladder to conduct maintenance you’re responsible for and have chosen to personally undertake. There’s not a hope in hell that the landlord would be liable for that.

I’m a liability claims inspector who investigates public, products and employer’s liability claims for a global insurer and negotiates settlements with the third party representatives

I don’t believe you. If I did believe you then I’d be advising you to go and get a job that you’re competent at.

Not to mention, most people who do conveyancing aren’t even solicitors.

No one is befuddled, you’re just full of shit and making a muppet of yourself.

Sounds like an ambulance chasing no win no fee compensation company

Just because she’s responsible doesn’t mean she has to do the task herself

i’m responsible for the sewer connection from my house to the main sewer in the rd. doesn’t mean I would have to dig it up and tarmac the rd myself if there was any problems

if OP did have an accident cutting hedge and tried to claim then surely she’d have to prove she was competent used the right equipment if she hasn't got that need to get someone who has

Aah so you must be a conveyancer then @Chickenly, my mistake. Or on a training contract perhaps?

I already waste enough time at work listening to solicitors/conveyancers pretending to be subject matter experts while spouting hot air, so
happily I’m immune. I don’t care what you may or may not believe.

Although I am rather surprised that you’ve resorted to name calling and stroppy outbursts so quickly, rather than responding to the points raised and making a coherent argument like one might expect from a competent solicitor.

Being an adult in a house I own..... I wouldn't sue myself. Being an adult in a rented property going up a ladder using machinary..... Bet your arse the law will be on my side under the landlord act.

My agreement includes everything in the garden, to save buying all the equipment I have a gardener 8 months of the year £25 a go. Does weeding, trimming, mowing etc.

Everything I can find on this subject suggests that in general standard garden maintenance clauses do not cover trimming trees and high hedges and if landlords want these to be the tenants responsibility, they should make this a specific clause in the tenancy agreement.

So I am not sure why the self professed lawyer on this thread is so adamant it’s an open and shut case. I’ve never seen a part of law that’s unambiguous- hence the courts exist.

If you even are a lawyer I bet you don’t specialise in property, it’s a big profession. I technically work in finance but you wouldn’t want me trading your stocks.

@ChilliBandit the OP posted the tenancy agreement and I read it that the OP is responsible. There are plenty of things tenants are responsible for that they may not do themselves - emptying septic tank, cleaning chimneys, cleaning windows.

@Chickenly I agree with you, I’m not a solicitor but a rural surveyor who has managed large country estates ranging from 50 ASTs to 600 ASTs. My degree was four years of different types property law and I write agreements from basic ASTs to large scale FBTs.

Just because it's written in the tenancy agreement doesn't mean it's legal

@fyn - the OPs agreement seems to include the standard gardening clauses, which as I said, every thing I’ve seen from reliable sources say they generally don’t cover the trimming of trees or high hedges, and that the landlord should include specific clauses for this if he wants to shift responsibility to the tenants.

Even websites set up to help landlords are saying this is the landlord’s responsibility.

@CombatBarbie I am aware but a clause asking a tenant to maintain hedges isn’t in contradiction of any law I am aware of. Garden hedges aren’t set out in s11 responsibilities so it is up for negotiation within clauses of the tenancy agreement.

@ChilliBandit it literally does not matter a jot what any website says.