Ex property manager harassment! WT?

If this was the case there would not be a "maintenance and repair" section of the agent/landlord contract.

 

Why?

You should seek legal advice asap.

 

That's funny, so if my sister is a residential property manager/agent, and I'm a gardener, she could give me a work order to landscape all the properties on their management portfolio, I could then invoice every property owner/landlord for whatever amount I like, even 7 months later throw them an invoice, and you are saying the property owner has to pay the invoice?

 

Are you sure you are a solicitor? You don't seem to understand what a contract is?

 

I am saying you could sue each property owner for the payment. But the manager has breached her terms with the owners so that they could be sued to compensate the loss.

You have done the work so the courts will look to get you paid.

 

And you don't understand the law of agency.

 

Hi ted varrick, since my OP I dug out my property management agreement and found the clause relating to "Repairs and maintenance". (I've typed it word for word in one of my replies in this thread if you interested). In a nutshell, the PM had agreed to obtain my authorisation for all non urgent repairs. I made a formal complaint to Fair Trading NSW and they agreed that I didn't have to pay, hence the previous PM now harassing me. The invoice is for $700. I told the tradie to refer to PM, but they refuse to pay him.

 

Ah, yes I do.
Contact agreement 1, between PM & I. PM has to get landlord (my) authorisation for all non urgent repairs = PM fail/breach.
Contract agreement 2: between PM and tradie. PM has appointed tradie but in breach of contractual obligations of contract 1 = PM will have to sort it out with tradie. Perhaps honour their contact with the tradie and pay out of pocket.

 

Who knows? It's for flyscreens (they definately weren't damaged in between tenants, all flyscreens were only 6 months new - I have receipts & photos- and were in excellent condition, also not listed as damaged or needing replacement on the PM/tenant exit inspection so this is baffling and naturally, I have a huge question mark over this particular invoice item) light globes, washers, laundry Taps. Even still, Total invoice is $700. It's stuff that you can't actually prove/visibly assess 7 months later. I wouldn't be able to tell if the flyscreens are the ones I placed as they were in perfect nick already? The whole thing is a schamozle.

 

Good luck - let us know what happens.

if you know it all why bother asking in the first place?

ps do some more research on 'laws of agency' and on 'equity'

 

All this over $700 - are you serious?

 

Tradie can't reasonably know what your arrangements are. They've done work on your property and expect to be paid for their time. Pay them.

Yes the agency did the wrong thing in not seeking authority from you first. You can take that up with them separately.

 

I feel for the tradie who's done the work and not been paid by anyone but also for @Schmoo - if asked he may not have agreed to any of that work or it may have been caused by damage by the tenant and if so needs to be paid by the tenant.

7mths on it's just impossible to assess how much of benefit the work done was to you.

I'd probably ask the PM agency to pay half and you pay half as you have benefited from the work done.

 

Were the first flyscreens organised by the agent ?
Is it possible that these weren't actually paid for by the agent at the time?

 

No you obviously don't because what you describe isn't how it works.

I agree with Terry - from what I can tell so far, the tradie can probably make a claim against both you and the agency and see what sticks - and its far more likely to stick onto you.

 

Schmoo might want to consider the answers to these questions:
1. Can an agent contract on behalf of a principal?
hint = yes

2. Could someone else rely on the apparent authority to enter a contract like this?
= yes.
A tradie would assume a real estate agent asking them to repair a job has the authority to bind the principal to the contract entered into.

3. Could such a contract be binding between the tradie and the owner?
= Yes

4. Has the landlord benefitted from the work performed by the tradie?
=Yes it would appear so.

5. Could the matter be taken to a court or tribunal by the tradie?
= Yes

6. Could the tradie sue the owner
= Yes

7. Could the owner countersue the real estate agent?
= Possibly

8. What would the legal fees be for the matter if it went like this?
$5000 or so.

9. Could these cost be recovered if the landlord wins?
Nope

 

And look up 'estoppel'!

 

I dont have a legal background but have a fairly good understanding of it, i would listen to your legal advice you who you are talking with (or should be).

Way I see it - Tradie did work, which was organized by you through you PM. He needs to be paid, you are the LL have received the benefit of his work and although you were not aware of his work until now the PM acted on your behalf and thus he needs to be paid.

The PM may have breached your PM agreement by authroising repairs above your amount. This is where the breach is so you will need to discuss with them an agreement or seek further legal action to recover the cost (there comes a point of cost benefit in going to court on this).

If I was in your position you would pay the tradie and then try and work out an agreement with the PM. It sucks that you have already moved on from the agency as you cant pull the property from their books. However you were able to reach a mutual agreement you will have a more positive experience with them as they appeared reasonable.

I know of a sceranio where the tenant advised the PM for a blocked drain in the sink and toilet, the PM advised the LL who approved the work to get it fixed. The PM orgaisned a plumber who went straight to the kitchen and began using the plunger and the contents of the toilet hit the roof. The LL asked the tradie to pay for it as it was his negligence that caused the issue and the LL needed to get HAZMAT to come out to clean. Plumber didn't so the LL had to pay it as it wasn't the tenants fault or the PM but someone has to pay it. The plumber no longer is the PM preferred plumber now so in someways it is similar to your scenario except it seems the PM is at fault but the LL is the one that pays.

In your scenario is it fair? Actually yes if you take out the emotion of it but I understand you can be bitter. However your issue lies with the PM and NOT the tradie.

 

Exactly! A reputable company would recognise their mistake and wear it. $700 is nothing for them. The PM has spent more harassing me, calling, emails. I kindly asked everyone for advice and a couple of members commented that I should refer to my management agreement as this will outline the authorised repairs agreement. I have now done that. I will agree to disagree with you. If it was as simple as you say, then the authorised repair agreement in PM/landlord contracts would not exist, what is its purpose. (All PM's could just authorise any repairs regardless of necessity or price. That's like giving PM's a blank cheque).

 

Hi big will. Thanks for your reply and input. As I mentioned, I'm furious that this has been raised with me 7 months after the fact putting me in a disadvantaged position to know if there was any authenticity of the nature of the "supposed work". I know the tradie has been dishonest about replacing the flyscreens, how can I believe any of the work was done. So from the outset this smells of BS. I moved from the PM as they were terrible, always disorganised, forgetting to action things. One tenant was an acquaintance of mine. I told her to always call the agent to report repairs. At a mutual friends event, she asked me if I was getting the toilet fixed? She had reported it to the PM 3 months earlier and numerous times since and when I called the PM, they apologised, said they were busy and kept forgetting. Anyway....thats history...one of many issues and now this.

I actually think that the PM should be paying the tradie. If the PM genuinely believed they had a recourse against me, they would happily subrogate against me, but they are not a reputable agency and I'm not surprised they have taken this stance.

As for the scenario you raised. A claim should have been lodged by the LL against the plumbers liability policy. If he was insured, the subsequent damage (clean up) caused by his negligence would have been paid by the insurer. The LL (or any natural person) is not liable to pay for any qualified persons negligence. The only reason the LL would pay in your scenario, is if the plumber didn't have insurance and refused to pay out of pocket (in which case the PM could then be sued by the LL under their professional indemnity policy for appointing uninsured tradies).

Thank you for your time and everyone else's (whether I agree or not). I will provide an update later.