The latest dispute concerns a landlord’s claim for £180.00 relating to the cost of restoring a garden that had fallen into significant disrepair by the end of a two-year tenancy. The landlord stated that the garden had not been maintained in line with the tenant’s obligations under the tenancy agreement.
Disputes involving gardens are common, particularly where responsibility for routine upkeep sits with the tenant. Tenants often argue that gardens naturally deteriorate with seasonal changes or that growth can quickly become unmanageable without professional intervention. In this case, the tenant accepted that the garden was “untidy” but maintained that its condition reflected normal seasonal overgrowth rather than neglect.
The evidence
The landlord provided a detailed check-in inventory describing the garden as “well maintained,” with freshly cut lawn edges, weed-free borders, and trimmed hedges. Photographs taken at the start of the tenancy supported this description. By contrast, the check-out report showed long, overgrown grass, heavily weeded borders, and shrubs encroaching onto pathways. The landlord also submitted an invoice from a professional gardener detailing extensive clearance work carried out after the tenancy ended.
The tenant argued that they had regularly used the garden and had undertaken occasional mowing but claimed that the rapid growth during the final months of the tenancy made it unreasonable to expect the garden to remain in the same condition as at check-in. They further suggested that the landlord’s decision to plant fast-growing shrubs contributed to the deterioration.
While some seasonal growth is to be expected, the adjudicator noted that the evidence showed a clear lack of routine maintenance over an extended period. The scale of the remedial work required (including clearance of established weeds and reshaping of overgrown shrubs) indicated neglect rather than normal use. The tenancy agreement also explicitly required the tenant to keep the garden “reasonably maintained,” which the adjudicator found had not been met.
The outcome
Accordingly, the adjudicator awarded the landlord £150.00, allowing for some seasonal growth but recognising that further gardening was necessary due to the tenant’s failure to carry out basic upkeep.
So, what are the key points here?
+ Gardens require ongoing routine maintenance, and seasonal growth does not excuse prolonged neglect.
+ Clear inventory descriptions and comparative photographs are crucial when assessing changes in garden condition.
+ Tenancy agreement clauses relating to garden upkeep will be considered when determining responsibility.
+ While some deterioration is inevitable, extensive overgrowth is unlikely to be considered as seasonal.
+ By following these tips and using a trusted deposit protection scheme like the Tenancy Deposit Scheme, landlords and letting agents can ensure disputes are resolved efficiently and fairly.
If you are interested in further guidance relating to deposit disputes, visit the Help Centre at TDS to browse further guides.
Sandy Bastin is director of resolution at TDS Adjudication Services – the only not-for-profit tenancy deposit protection scheme.
