Wondering what property managers do about different types of damages when a tenant vacates. Would they (or can they) generally make any deductions from the bond for these types of things? If so, how is it calculated? Or do tenants just get away with these types of things? - area of benchtop layer peeling from either hot item placed on it or a chemical spill (good quality glossy laminex 13 yrs old in otherwise perfect condition) - chrome plating on shower screen frame and floor waste stripped by harsh chemicals (13 yr old frames were previously in perfect condition) - stains on stone benchtop - areas of brand new carpet scratched/urinated on by animal -
First, third and fourth item seem pretty clear cut damage. I think you'd really need a professional opinion on the second one to make sure it wasn't a failure of the product (it might be more obvious in person, not sure without photos). Short of using oven cleaner on your floor, you shouldn't really be able to destroy a chromed floor waste with cleaning chemicals.
Thanks Tom. Can anyone with experience in claiming for these types of things perhaps provide some examples of how much they have successfully deducted? There doesn't seem to be any clear guidelines to follow. Say, if things should progress to QCAT we wouldn't want to be asking for too much/too little recompense. Same tenants also got an unapproved husky puppy. Were breached numerous times but kept dog there. Subsequently carpets were all ruined with urine smell, snags and terrible wrinkling (believe from unprofessional cleaning to try to remove urine). We don't know the age of the carpets (have had house 5 yrs, house is 13 yrs old, unsure if carpet was original but it was in very good condition). Any comments/ideas greatly appreciated.
Unfortunately the guidelines for decisions made at tribunal are mired in mystery. While some members tend to agree with each other in their methods, others dont. They're not held to any sort of precedent and are able to make decisions contravening written law, which doesn't help. I would almost always seek full repair/replacement cost and leave it to the adjudicator to depreciate based on their mood. They can depreciate based on ATO lifespans, in which case they could award you absolutely nothing for your carpet, but if you are respectful, reasonable and present a well formed case you're likely to get something, if not all of it. At the very least you'd need to replace the underlay and treat the carpet with an odour neutralizer, and by the time you've done two treatments and underlay you'll find replacing the entire room of carpet is probably cheaper (assuming you can get a comparable carpet). If you do, make sure you've substantiated why you went down that route- show them you got quotes on treatment and that it wasn't guaranteed to work, hence why you replaced. You will absolutely need a professional opinion or two on what caused the chrome damage or I dont like your chances of getting anything for that. Another point is that tribunal members will not pay out on quotes- if you haven't paid to get a new shower screen and floor waste they wont give it to you, and I cant blame you for not wanting to spend $1000 there when you may (probably) not get back. It's idiotic and backwards because I'd argue that you shouldn't have to go to the expense of cosmetic rectification without any guarantee of being reimbursed, but their decisions are designed to stop Landlords trying to profiteer off vacates (i.e. present an expensive quote and then do the work cheaply yourself). The benchtop will be an interesting one because in my experience Laminate is not economically repairable. If you are able to perfectly match with new laminate in the section that's damaged ($600?) you may have some luck, but there's no way you'd get a whole set of new of benchtops ($2000?). If you're left with no option to appropriately rectify than full replacement, I'd go in with a claim for the full cost and acknowledge to the adjudicator that you are only expecting a sum of compensation negotiated and agreed within the hearing. Stains on the stone benchtop may come out with the appropriate treatment, in which case I'm sure you'd be fine claiming for that cost ($400?). If they dont come out, same deal with the laminate- very unlikely you'd get full replacement, but make sure you've got the cost there.
Thank you Tom .... that is extremely helpful. It is such a minefield for newbies with no real guidelines to be found. Appreciate your time responding.
Great response Tom, its so true that what is awarded is subjective based on the member. Although in NSW, my last tribunal we claimed wall damage to a relatively new dwelling (2.5yrs old when tenant vacated), got 3 quotes and was awarded 50% of the lowest quote.
Individual tribunal decisions can vary somewhat, but really the law on the issue is very clear and settled. For damage, a tenant is responsible if it was caused negligently or intentionally. Negligence generally means either: - Tenant did something a reasonable tenant SHOULD NOT have done; which led to the damage; OR - Tenant didn't do something that a reasonable tenant SHOULD HAVE done; which led to the damage. Once liability is established, then the issue of quantum of damage pretty much means the landlord is entitled to the cost that it takes to fix, or a new replacement, whichever is lower. The secondhand value of the damaged fixture or part of the premises has to be taken into account though, which usually means some form of depreciated value is worked off. I'd say out of the 4 things, only that last one seems clear cut. The negligence isn't inherently obvious from the damage for the others.
