A dispute arose between the landlord and tenant due to the condition of the garden at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord claimed £25 in order to remove brambles and weeds from the rear garden.

Check-in and check-out reports were submitted by the landlord and showing that additional brambles and weeds had indeed been left at the end of the tenancy.

However, the tenant did not agree to the claim arguing that he had been prevented from accessing the garden during the tenancy due to the landlord erecting scaffolding to the exterior of the property.

The tenant provided a photograph dated several months prior to the end of the tenancy which supported his argument.

The landlord accepted scaffolding had been present towards the end of the tenancy but argued that, had the tenant maintained the garden prior to the maintenance work commencing, the garden would have been returned in satisfactory condition due to the limited regrowth in the winter months.

The tenant was contractually liable to return the garden to the same condition in which he received it.

There was no evidence provided by the tenant to show that the garden remained inaccessible on the last day of the tenancy, over seven weeks after the tenant’s photograph had been taken.

The adjudicator also noted that the check-out clerk had been able to obtain access to the garden on the last day of the tenancy to record its condition.

The adjudicator concluded that the works could have reasonably been completed by the tenant and awarded the landlord in full.

So, what are the key points here?

A TDS adjudicator will look at the contractual obligations placed on the tenant by the tenancy agreement. If sufficient evidence has been submitted to show the tenant breached those agreed terms, then an award is likely to be successful.

A party is not able to rely upon a statement of claim alone but must support their rebuttable of a claim with substantive evidence.

If the tenant had been able to show with documentary evidence that the landlord’s actions prevented him from fulfilling his gardening obligations, then an award to the landlord may have been less likely.

In this case the tenant did not provide any evidence to support his statement that he was prevented access to the garden at the end of the tenancy in order to return it to its pre-tenancy condition.

The adjudicator therefore reverted to the tenant’s obligations outlined in the tenancy agreement.

* Sandy Bastin heads up the disputes resolution service at TDS