ACT Agent requesting payment over a year later

Definitely will not be paying for anything. They can take me to tribunal if they want, but they have no grounds.

Exactly right. When I received the email, I initially thought it was a scam. Turns out it was just a bad agent.

Just want to say thank you to everyone on this thread for all your help! Thank you for reassuring me that I'm not liable for the invoice, so they will definitely get a firm response from me that I will not be paying.

 

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but the agent has come back 1 year later after I started this thread and has come threatened they will seek a debt collector if I do not pay by next Friday.

I'm hoping to get some advice on what I can do if they do get a debt collector? Based on my recollection and emails, I was not made aware of the unpaid invoice 1 year after the tenant had vacated and I had sold the property.

I spoke to my existing real estate agent and he advised me to reach out to Fair Trading.

TLDR: Tenant vacated and I sold the property. 1 year later agent sends me an unpaid invoice for painting that was done after the tenants vacated. Another year later, he is requesting payment or will pursue with debt collection.

 

I'd seek legal advice, but at the end of the day, if you had the painting done, you should have paid for it.

 

Even if it was done without my knowledge or authorisation?

I will likely seek advice from fair trading.

 

Big deal! Ignore it.

You may get a letter or two of demand, but just ignore them and certainly don't engage or try to explain your situation.

If it ever went to court you would then fight it, but that will never happen for such a small amount and in any event your defence would be strong.

A threat of legal action or debt collection often scares people into action, best not to be intimidated by such actions.

 

Thanks for your advice. My only concern is that I get defaulted because I know some debt collectors have the ability to do this.

 

Sorry, I just re-read the original question. No, if you did not ask for it to be done and you did not authorise for it to be done, then I wouldn't be paying for it.

 

Agent claims that on his system it says he called me back in 2019 with the quotes, and I agreed to it. He's saying playing the covid card, saying in these times I shouldn't make it hard for the contractor .

I do not recall this and it's over 2 years ago. He obviously does not have any written proof from me that I authorised it. Even if I did approve it, the odd thing is why was I not provided an invoice to pay it back in 2019. One year later in May 2020 was the first time I've seen the invoice, which was a shock to me.

Do I still have a strong defence if it does goto court?

 

Ask him to provide written proof that you authorised it.

 

He can't, his only proof is his recollection that I provided authorisation over the phone. I cannot recall and also since it was over 2 years ago.

He also claimed an end of lease inspection report was sent to me, but I was unable to find it in my emails.

 

Let me ask a different question.

Was the property painted because you needed to spruce it up for sale, or because of how the tenant left it? If the latter then shouldnt they be chasing up the tenant for payment?

If the former, then I assume you remember him suggesting it and you saying yes/no to it. If there's no request for it then I'd walk away from it.

I think the cleaning one is possibly different. If the cleaning was within your authorised spend limit then I think it is up to you to pay (although if it was needed because of how tenants left it , why not chase tenants up for it?). However, being the duration, surely you'd write it off by then. I would if was agent.

 

Seems they will have to proof they have an authorisation to do to job.
He said she said won't cut it.

I'd call his bluff and let him try.
Debut collectors will not do anything unless there's court order, otherwise every second person would send the dogs at anyone they claim owes them $10.....

 

Hello D.T,

From the recent email conversations he claims that it was part of "wear and tear" and I authorised it over the phone, again no written proof or an invoice/quote provided to me after the work was "completed". I personally do not recall this discussion over the phone.

With regards to your question about cleaning, I did confront the agent regarding authorisation as the spend limit was $300, but he replied it was part of the condition report. I'm unsure they they can do this, but regardless I promptly paid it. I did receive an invoice for this and it was present in the PM monthly statements.

When confronted about the $450 for painting, this was his response:

 

I dont understand what they mean by the section "part of the condition report".

In any case, i think thats a fair deal for everyone involved - got paid for the cleaning, tell them to go jump on the painting. If its not worth their time getting written authorisation or bringing it out of archives, then I dont think its worth their time chasing it any further. Honestly as an agent I'd just pay it to get the thing closed off.

 

If it does not make sense to you D.T, then it sure as hell makes no sense to me.

I can confirm the cleaning was discussed with me as I was provided the option to proceed with ACAT, which I refused in the end and paid it myself.

The painting I do not recall. Bottom line here is they have no written proof of me authorising it, only an entry in their system with two quotes and claim they called me where I authorised it.

Another point is that I never received an invoice from the PM for the painting until May 2020 (a year later), with the invoice date as Feb 2019. Why did it take over a year for me to receive this invoice?

 

Do any PMs here know what "part of the condition report" means?

My understanding is that there are two types of work:

• Urgent maintenance: burst pipes, blocked pipes, gas leaks, etc
• Normal maintenance: anything else that is not deemed "urgent"

I assume cleaning and painting at the end of lease would fall under "normal maintenance" and thus require my approval if over an agreed amount ($300 in this case).

I am not aware of any non-urgent work flagged in an end-of-lease inspection report, that can be done without the landlord authorisation.

Can anyone confirm if this is correct?