Government agency as landlord - condition dispute

A government agency is a landlord, and has conducted matters in what seems to be a marginal way. The property is in Victoria. There was no condition report at the start or end of the lease. On the last day the tenant and a relative spent several hours cleaning the property, and it was most probably left in a condition similar to that at the start of the lease. About four months later the LL advised the tenant that there was a lot of damage, and the tenant had to pay for this. The alleged damage had been made good by then. There are pictures of the alleged damage but they don't show or prove much.

My understanding is that a condition report should be made at the start and end of a lease, and that without a condition report it's hard to prove the state at the start or end. Advice is sought. Has anyone experienced a situation like the above, and what does the law say about it? TIA.

 

Is this a residential lease? Who is the government agency? Like the public housing commission?

 

4 months later? Get stuffed. When we moved out of the place we rented in Wagga.. the PM called me 3 weeks later and said they had just conducted the exit report and there was cobwebs, dust and a range of other issues I needed to fix or pay for. I just said "3 weeks after I move out you're doing your checks? Have a think about it and call me back." I never got a call.

 

If there was no condition report at commencement of the lease, they've got nothing (in NSW at least). I can't recall whether it is possible to add a condition report at a later stage however the lease refers to entry & exit reports on the one document as it 's a record at commencement of the lease.

Linky

 

Agreed - the inspection needs to be ASAP, the day that the tenant moves out. I'm after a specific law that will stop this cold. I cannot find anything in the Residential Tenancies Act.

 

Yeah, a lot do this,,,,,prob after they realise no inspection done or LL confronted them maybe...

 

VCat - condition reports
VCat1 - leases

RTA Vic 1997 - S35 & S36

 

Thanks. I'm aware of sections 35 and 36. I'm after a legal precedent that if there is no condition report at the start and/or end, and/or a lot of time has elapsed before the LL says there's damage, then there is no remedy due to lack of evidence.. There was no bond, so s 35 (1) does not apply, and there's no requirement to provide a condition report. S 35 (2) is unclear. S 35 (1) says that a condition report is required if there's a bond, but s 35 (2) says " the tenant must return one copy of the condition report to the landlord". So optional in s 35 (1) and mandatory in s 35 (2).

The months of delay seem to me to breach the reasonable person test. If a tenant of mine had damaged my IP I'd be onto this ASAP. I will put this to them and see what they say, which to date has been quite illogical, late or both.

 

No there's no such precedent.

Likewise with a delay of months. Its a breach of contract - the limitation period is generally 6 years.

 

I do not understand. The alleged damage was notified several months after the end of the lease, which in my view is too long. Section 35 says
"Within 3 business days after entering into occupation of the rented premises, the tenant must return one copy of the condition report to the landlord".
So the RTA says days for a condition report to be submitted, and months later for LL advice about alleged damage is well beyond this, which appears to be a breach of an implict contract. I cannot see how the statute of limitations applies.

 

Condition reports are just a form of evidence of the condition of the premises. There are other pieces of evidence can be used - for example, eyewitness testimony.

If the Act wasn't complied with regarding condition reports, it doesn't mean a tenant can do whatever they want regarding their other other liabilities - two wrongs don't make a right.

The relevance of the delay and the lack of condition reports would probably be limited to making it harder for the landlord to prove damage - harder but certainly not impossible.

Does that make sense? You're wasting your time looking for some sort of "instant win" law. Just deal with the claim for damage on its merits.

 

That makes sense. I'm not after instant law so much as identifying precedents. Given the lack of hard evidence and the delay it could be very hard to prove. It seems that the burden of proof lies with the LL, and I can see what can be done in that regard. The RTA gives an indicative time-frame for returning the condition report, and any bond claims. Section 417 says that a LL has 14 days after the end of the lease to apply for part or all of the bond. Elsewhere the RTA cites days or two weeks for bond-related matters. So I suggest that any claim for damages should be within this sort of time, not months. The LL has already agreed to reducing the claim by about 30%, and this was for damage known to the LL to be not caused by the tenant. It's a spurious claim, and we're after no payment.

 

This is irrelevant to whether the tenant is liable for the damage or not. Limitation period is 6 years.