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?

@fyn - including you on this one then - got it.

I am sure the Tenancy Deposit Scheme, Savills and several solicitors firms are all incorrect, but a couple of posters on MN claiming to be lawyers are spot on 👍

@Chickenly im a rural litigator and I agree with you.
The common law provision is a fallback for when the tenancy is silent which in this case it is not, it is at your discretion that parties may enter bespoke clauses into an AST if they both agree which I’d assume they had, given that they have presumably both signed the document.

There are many instances in agreements where the tenant themselves cannot undertake required tasks themselves, and that is not the point of the clause. The clause states they are responsible for those features and therefore if they can’t undertake the task with competence, they should be employing the services of someone who can.

For example, an FRI FBT agreement states that the landlord has the responsibility of the eICR but the tenant must undertake remedial works. Unless the tenant is a part P registered electrician, they can’t reasonably undertake that in hand (and nor would any sane landlord let them) so the tenant employs someone who can. It’s a requirement on the FRI tenancy…

“Legal advice” from mumsnet is terrifying.

@fyn oops soz meant to tag you in that as well!

You’ve gotta laugh ChilliBandit 😅

@Fyn - are you aware of the tort of negligence and the duty of care owed by the landlord not to put the tenant at risk of foreseeable harm by e.g not giving any guidance or instructions re appointing contractors, PPE etc, whilst making the inexpert tenant responsible for trimming the hedge at height? Do you understand the risk of injury involved in operating the strimmer at the top of a ladder - no training, no gloves/goggles, no idea of safe working practices and no reason why you should. There is certainly no onus on the tenant to be a hedge and topiary expert.

All well and good as long as nothing goes wrong. It’s a very different story if an accident happens. This would constitute negligence from the landlord - where’s the risk assessment? Where’s the clause prohibiting the tenant from
doing it themselves? What has the landlord actually done to avoid foreseeable harm to the tenant? Bunging in a couple of standard clauses about mowing the lawn, omitting any mention of the high hedge, no insistence on appointing competent contractors, no provision of specialist equipment or PPE and all the while insisting it is the tenant’s responsibility while turning a blind eye to the obvious risk that the tenant could have a go themselves. Landlord has done nothing to prohibit this, point out the danger or minimise it. Brilliant.

The landlord could probably get away with it if nothing went wrong. But pesky accidents will happen when operating strimmers 5 feet up a ladder. The courts would take a very dim view of the landlord’s abdication of their duty of care when it leads to a lopped off thumb or worse. Might be able to pin contributory negligence on the tenant if they’ve been spectacularly dumb, but the lions share of the liability would rest with the (very irresponsible) landlord.

@PatientZorro - I am especially a fan of the poster who works in a niche unrelated area of law applying that to residential tenancies whilst despairing at the wrong legal advice on MN.

😂😂

It's an awfully dangerous job for an amateur. I think it is maintenance the landlord should be organizing and paying for himself, as it is also a considerable extra expense, and this being a non-negotiable part of the terms of agreement should really have been quite specifically spelt out at the offset, prior to letting. But it is a tricky climate to be messing with rental stability, so...

@ChilliBandit I agree.

We have the 10ft bloody high tree/hedging boundary that costs a fortune to have maintained every year, as in 4 figures and my husband is no slouch innthe garden.

They have the considerable law abiding disposal of all the waste, the correct protective equipment with all the different gear.
That equipment is very heavy to keep elevated as you cut, very much a fit young person's job.
Accidents can happen particularly from a height.
I certainly wouldn't recommend anyon inexperienced attempt it.
We would only ever have highly recommended word of mouth people doing any maintenance work for us.

Between insurance and cowboys, anyone not recommended is not worth taking a chance on.

It’s funny how all the actual professionals are saying it’s the OP’s responsibility and all of the tenants who don’t want to do it are saying it’s the landlord’s responsibility (except one PP with a very vague job description that somehow means they think they’re a professional expert despite being wildly incorrect).

Are you missing the part where you name called and insulted me on the very first comment you said to me? Don’t try to rewrite what happened here to try and derail the thread onto who was mean to whom first just because you’re wrong on what OP actually asked. You resorted to stroppiness and name calling - you don’t get to play the victim when other people treat you the same way.

I’d respond to your points if they were valid or made sense. I have made response to numerous points you’ve made. Unfortunately, you keep intentionally misunderstanding what I said and then rewriting my comments to say something completely different. I don’t engage in debates where the other person isn’t debating in any good faith and is simply trying to right on a topic where they’re out of their depth. You are wrong. It really is that simple.

Seems it’s a grey area

when is your tenancy up for renewal? Could you get it clarified then in the tenancy agreement?

It’s a grey area of law, it’s clarified in the contract. If a grey area of law is clarified in the contract then the contract is right.

For example:
In law, it’s very clear that tenants do not need to allow viewings to take place. If the contract says that they do then it’s irrelevant because the law is clear and the law clearly disagrees.

However, in the case, the law has a list of jobs that the landlord must do. If the contract said OP had to do any of them then she still wouldn’t because the law overrides the contract. However, this job isn’t on that list. Then there’s a general rule of the law that says (very simplified)“blue” jobs are the landlord’s and “red” jobs are the tenant’s. Various court cases have clarified what is “blue” and what is “red” and it’s still ambiguous - it’s a grey area whether this particular job is a “blue” job or a “red” job. So, the contract says OP has to do it - because the law doesn’t actively disagree, the contract stands. The law is a grey area but the situation here is a matter of contract obligation not legal/statutory obligation. The contractual obligation is very clear. It’s made even clearer because OP agreed at the time and has been acting to execute the contract ever since. If she didn’t think that clause included maintaining the hedges then she wouldn’t have done it twice already.

The whole “OP needs insurance” is a red herring, the whole “tort of negligence” is a red herring, the whole “above head height” is a red herring (do people think tenants don’t have to change lightbulbs?!)… lots of irrelevant points being made. I don’t have the energy to go through exactly why each of these points don’t change anything but they don’t.

It’s a simple contract situation. The contract is valid, the terms are clear, nothing is vacating or invalidating or superseding or undermining the contract. The contract stands.

We have a rental with high hedges and we pay yearly to get them trimmed. Our letting agents told us we don't have to that as long as the hedges are in good order then its the tenants responsibility to keep them in good order. We found tenants just didn't do it so set it up ourselves after a tenancy change and the subsequent rent increase. You can do it, or you can pay higher rent.

I don’t see any lawyers specialising in residential property on this thread. What professionals do you refer to? In fact many landlords on this thread have said it’s the landlords responsibility. I am also not a tenant and except for university have never been one.

It’s not a property law issue, it’s a contract law issue. No one has argued it’s a property law issue - why do you believe it’s a property law issue? Some people have tried to argue it’s a tort law issue (but it’s not).

Sorry I should have specified residential tenancy agreements. As you will be aware, commercial and rural tenancy agreements are completely different with different precedents and expectations.

I would be really interested to see what would happen in a deposit dispute in this case because that’s where it would likely get decided. Not what you have decided will happen as some self appointed authority, but what has actually happened in these cases.

A tenancy could be both commercial and rural. It doesn’t sound like this tenancy is commercial or rural though. For starters, deposit disputes aren’t legal decisions, they’re arbitral almost 100% of the time. Secondly, the landlord would win.

It actually doesn’t matter what type of contract it is - a contract is a contract (or it isn’t). There’s not really a special status for a tenancy agreement, it just has a lot of overriding law. It’s not a complex or difficult area of law - which is why so many tenancy agreements were never even seen by a lawyer of any kind.

So it does matter what type of contract it is then if it has overriding law. I doubt the OP cares about the ins and outs of contract law though but whether she has to pay, and that will be most likely be a Tenancy Deposit Scheme decision. Who, despite your confidence, have in their publicly available literature that’s it is most likely the landlords responsibility and would be unreasonable to expect the tenants to to trim high hedges and trees.

None of the lawyers I work with ever declare that the law is so black and white btw. It’s always well the law says X and precedent have interpreted it as Y. Everything I can see on this says it’s a grey area at most, so I can’t for the life of me work out why you are so very sure it’s the landlords responsibility. Weird.

Anyway, OP I hope you get it sorted. Your LL sounds shit and I hope you find a more reasonable one like some who have posted here.

You're either intentionally or unintentionally not reading what I've said.

So it does matter what type of contract it is then if it has overriding law.
That's correct. But there is no overriding law relating to this issue. Therefore, the contract stands on the basis of standard, first-year contract law. I made this clear when I previously said: "the law has a list of jobs that the landlord must do. If the contract said OP had to do any of them then she still wouldn’t because the law overrides the contract. However, this job isn’t on that list. Then there’s a general rule of the law that says (very simplified)“blue” jobs are the landlord’s and “red” jobs are the tenant’s. Various court cases have clarified what is “blue” and what is “red” and it’s still ambiguous - it’s a grey area whether this particular job is a “blue” job or a “red” job. So, the contract says OP has to do it - because the law doesn’t actively disagree, the contract stands. The law is a grey area but the situation here is a matter of contract obligation not legal/statutory obligation. The contractual obligation is very clear. It’s made even clearer because OP agreed at the time and has been acting to execute the contract ever since. If she didn’t think that clause included maintaining the hedges then she wouldn’t have done it twice already".

Who, despite your confidence, have in their publicly available literature that’s it is most likely the landlords responsibility and would be unreasonable to expect the tenants to to trim high hedges and trees.
The TDS website says "A standard tenancy agreement will require the tenant to keep the grass and bushes trimmed, remove rubbish and regularly empty bins. It is up to the landlord to make any repairs to the external areas of the property such as fencing, walls, paths, roofing, etc". They also say "If a landlord is making a claim for the cutting back of a tree it could be down a number of circumstances. A regular reason for gardening disputes is when a garden has been left in poor condition by the tenant and work is needed to bring it back to the same condition as at the start of the tenancy. Rental properties that come with gardens should have a clause in the tenancy agreement setting out a tenant’s responsibilities for any garden maintenance. If these responsibilities are not met during the tenancy, the landlord could propose deductions from the tenancy deposit to pay for gardening costs".

Here's a link to a case from TDS: www.tenancydepositscheme.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Adjudication-Digest-March-2013-%E2%80%93-Damage.pdf
It says "The tenants argued that they were not obliged to trim the high hedges and ivy on the basis it would have required hiring specialist gardening equipment which they were not contractually obliged to do". TDS determined "The adjudicator was satisfied that the tenancy agreement required the tenants to maintain the gardens during the tenancy". This is the exact situation OP is in. And TDS decided in favour of the landlord (except for £50 which they knocked off because "the work involved was undertaken three weeks after the end of the tenancy, during which time further growth to the garden would have occurred".

None of the lawyers I work with ever declare that the law is so black and white btw.
The law is not "black and white" - the situation in this particular case is black and white though. That was made clear when I said "it’s a grey area of law" repeatedly.

Are you done misinterpreting and misquoting what I've said and what was said by the TDS? The situation is black and white. It is OP's responsibility.

This. It is the landlords responsibility.

@Chickenly - you are purposefully misquoting. That case study specifically says there was confusion over what the landlord was claiming for but the Landlord clarified he wasn’t claiming for the tree trimming.

Whats a rural tenancy agreement!? Rural legal professionals are some of the most broadly knowledgeable that I have come across. They advise landowners of all aspects of their property which includes residential ASTs, Commercial 54 Act tenancies and AHA/FBT amongst other things.

www.tenancydepositscheme.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Adjudication-Digest-March-2013-%E2%80%93-Damage.pdf

there you go @Chickenly

I took it to mean "any tenancy in a rural location" - not that OP appears to be in a rural location or that it matters.

If you scroll up three comments you'll see that I linked you to that exact pdf... what on earth do you mean "there you go?". I'm out - this is getting too ridiculous. They do say not to argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.