I think it goes both ways...
we bought a house for the sole purpose of demolishing it and building a new home. We rented it out for a couple of years while we prepped ourselves for the build (moving from interstate, dealing with architects, a few changes of plan after being told that the house would cost more than double the initial figures, etc). The tenants wanted our house because of the big block, and because they were keen gardeners.
Fine, it was MY garden, but MY plans were to remove the whole things and start with a blank canvas (so to say). My tenants wanted the masterpiece in the interim. They claned up the place from the what the prior owners had left behind, planted lots of new stuff, and kept up the garden during the heatwaves last year then moved out about a month later. Should I be expected to pay for that, knowing that the whole thing was about to be bulldozered? It was their hobby - I didn't care if they let it die.
Just saying - sometimes it's not the owners who expect the garden to be a certain way. If the owner REALLY wants the gardens cared for then they should be employing a gardener - it's called property maintenance, and tenants shouldn't have to pay the landlord to maintain a property - financial or labour. It gives them good marketability on the house for the next time it needs to be rented or sold. If the owner couldn't care less, but the tenants want a pretty garden as a hobby or to show off to the neighbours then it should not be a burden on the owners to keep up with the aspirations of the extraordinarily keen gardener!!
having said that, I *do* think that tenants should at least take the time and effort to not let the place go to hell and look like something you would see on "Today Tonight"If the lease stated that the gardens should be cared for and the tenants didn't have the appropriate tools, I'd be more than happy to supply...
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks