NSW Is the tribunal member helping the tenant?? (NSW)

Hi all,
I attended a tribunal hearing, I made couple of claims against the tenant.
One of the claims is two chips on the bathroom basin, I did not provide photos as the tenant admitted his repsonsbility in his email (email provided), however, he denied in the hearing.
The tribunal member asked the tenant questions like if he dropped anything on the basin (of couse the tenant would say no), and then asked the tenant when the chips were found, the tenant said he got no idea about the chips, he said he first noticed was about 2 to 3 months ago (he moved in about 2 years ago), also a photo shows that the chips were not there when the tenant was moving in.
The tribunel member made a decision that the tenant is not liable for the chips on the bathroom basin, as they are minor and does not affect the function.
Aren't these damages? These were not there at beginning of the lease and found at the end of lease inspection, isn't the tenant liable for the replacement costs?
There are few other things which I feel the tribunal member made his decision in favour of the tenant as well.
Thank you.

 

If you attend the Tribunal without all of the evidence that you are seeking judgement including having submitted it 2 weeks prior to the Tribunal, it's likely that the 'evidence' will be disregarded or discounted.

Not having photos, even if culpability is agreed, is a rooky mistake.

 

Consider it a cheap lesson and move on with your life!

 

Thank you for your reply.

It was extremely unfair, his decision was because these are minor and not affecting the function. The tenant admitted these were found couple of months ago in the hearing, and a photo of the basin at the beginning of the lease was provided. He basically got out of it because he got no idea why there are chips on the basin.

The others are scratches and dents on the walls, the tribunal member's decision is these are fair wear and tear. Before and after photos were provided. Aren't these damages as well? I attended another hearing couple of years ago, the tenant was even responsible for marks on the walls.

 

That's not the legal test for liability though.

It has to be negligent or intentionally caused damage.

 

Accidents happen, but I hate the old "fair wear and tear" BS

10 years in my current house and not a chip scratch or dent

Maybe we should lobby to have "lazy" to the test of liability

 

And there are few other things, I strongly feel that the tribunal member made his decision in favour of the tenant.

 

For a couple of chips I wouldn't have bothered to go to the tribunal tbh. Even at the best of times they can be infuriating. Not worth the hassle and time.

Isn't it just lovely housing tenants

 

Let it be a lesson, that you take photos of the damage and present them at tribunal. Thankfully it doesn't seem that much damage was done, and scratches on walls are always going to come down to fair wear & tear.

IMHO, I'd not have bothered with tribunal for such a small issue. Just fix and move on.

 

NCAT? Someone described it to me as “a zoo”. No rules of evidence applicable. No legal representation allowed (only in certain matters). The time that you spent on minor issues like these would have been better spent elsewhere. Of course it’s within your right to bring the matter to NCAT.

 

Tribunal can be quite subjective and often depends on which member you get on the day. I have found that claims around arrears and termination are very clear cut but claims for minor damage often get turned into "wear and tear".

 

Sometimes it pays to pick your battles. Experience has told me many times that I am 'rich' and the tenant is poor, even when the facts are that the tenant is/was earning more than twice our income. If you want to play the game, it's cheaper, and less stressful to accept this.

 

Many people (landlords) argue damage should replace a item when this isnt the role of any tribunal or court. Same as wear and tear inst insurable either. Role of courts is to address remedies if certain types of damage occur and make good what was there. But if you rolled up existing carpet and stuck it on the street with a for sale sign its not worth much, if anything. So dont expect a judgement that compensates that cost.

Insure and accept wear and tear is a cost of ownership.

 

Agreed, this entire thread could be a case study on why people think tribunals and the residential tenancy laws favour tenants apparently.

Fundamental misunderstandings on when tenants are liable for damage, and how the losses for that damage are calculated.

Ridiculous frankly.

 

I totally agree.
I attended to couple of tribunal hearings couple of years ago, the decisions could be varied.

 

Yes, perhaps there is a bias.

The member believed what the tenant said in the hearing without providing any evidence. However, he asked me for evidence of everything I said. And he sounded like didn't believe me when I said it was a face to face conversation so I got no email.

 

There are few other issues and the tenant claimed the whole rental bond.

The member decided the tenant is responbile for one third of the issues.

 

I am renting as well and I have been trying to prevent any chip or scratch and thought it was common, perhaps it is not neccssary.

Couple of years ago when I was renting another property, the property manager tried to make me to be responsible for some minor things. I had done the incoming condition report well and took photos of the whole property. Otherwise, he definitely going to claim from my rental bond.

 

this is to be expected. As the one making the claim you have the burden of proof. Tenant does not have a duty to provide any evidence that they did not do something

 

Yep, back in the day we had a rental in solar drive Whittington (we were poor and it was a stretch to afford at $175,000), those that know will KNOW it was houso central

Tenant drove a current model Commodore (No offence @datto I was actually jealous of it) so this "family" got the rental.

They dodged being behind in rent for 18 months before abandoning the place owing 5 months rent

Place was trashed, not a wall without a hole, spaghetti on the kitchen ceiling, mould everywhere in the bathroom, carpets more urine than carpet, with carpet pulled back and the floor boards hacked out for somewhere to hide drugs (yep, found a baggy of green stuff even ), 6 skips of rubbish, gardens overgrown and "what lawn"......

We never bothered going to tribunal, the tenant is entitled to "life comforts", the Sherrif can't take their car, tv, lounge or pretty much anything as part of debt recovery

So we fixed it ourselves, it cost more than we had collected in rent for that 18 months
Like below, as an owner you just need to make allowances, but more importantly to move on .

Sure some tenants aren't great, but some landlords aren't either