Wear and Tear or Tenants need to pay

Or you know, they might just rule on the evidence before them.

 

I agree with the above, it's extremely difficult to prove tenant fault in this case- and it's likely it isn't their fault either.

You would need to either find evidence of impact chipping, burn marks, etc. In absence of all other options unfortunately you may be up for replacement- it's certainly not something you will win in tribunal and may jeopardise any other legitimate claims you may have.

Interesting that the Building Authority may be able to help?

 

A kitchen 4 years old, crack on the bench with no other signs of damage either in the kitchen or in the house (OP mentioned they are good tenants that haven't caused damaged) and cheap materials used in the build.

Good luck with your evidence considering the majority of people are saying it is difficult to prove you must be seeing something the rest are not. Please elaborate on how the tenant is clearly at fault...

 

No, that was my point.

The evidence doesn't really support a finding of tenant negligence. I don't think there's any need to blame a "money hungry landlord" perceived bias at QCAT.

 

that comment was a exaggeration but have you been to QCAT? They do favour the tenant so you have to convince them beyond any doubt that they caused the damage.

In the meantime while you are taking it to QCAT the tenant is still living in the property and could cause further damage to spite you and proceeding to make it very difficult to one get them out and even when you do get them out they will make it very difficult to show any prospective tenants through costing you easily 1 weeks worth of rent + reletting fee which would cost more than the $400 in question.

 

No I haven't been to QCAT, but I've been to a lot of courts and tribunals and I can't say I've seen anything other than application of the law based on the evidence before them.

And if you ask any party to the proceedings, they usually claim the court or tribunal is biased against them.

What you might be referring to is the burden of proof of the claimant to show liability on the balance of probabilities. Versus the expectation of some landlords going into tribunal without preparing their case, or any understanding of the law.

 

My WAG is that this has been done by something, I would say a impact, find out if the material is man made or natural and if it is heat effected. If it is anything like that ceasar stone, geez it is tough stuff !

I can say for sure it is not because you self manage So it is either falls to the person who chose that material, or someone/thing related to the tenant.