Would expect the landlord to pay?

We have a property that has had the front entrance door lever damaged with the tenant stating that someone must have tried to break in.

However, we installed a security screen door at the request of the tenant only 6 months ago at our cost and at her request which she has now informed the agency she never bothers to use.

To top it off, she has stated that the lever needs to a be knob.

My thoughts are that we replace the lever at our cost.

Opinions welcome.

 

It doesn't work why?

A knob is an unsatisfactory opener - arthritics etc can't grasp it. A single action lever handle is preferable.

 

1. If the door is damaged due to intruder, we tell tenants we need a QP# otherwise it is deemed they or persons they allowed on the property have done this.
2. Security screen door knob request change to handle - as a pm I would tell her to do it herself and provide our office with a receipt from someone suitable. Fact that she doesn't use it, annoying but I wouldn't go changing something just because it doesn't suit them.

 

QP# ? is that a Queensland Police report number?

 

Police report number - this is the only exception to let them off

 

Interesting agency policy, but not really reflective of the legal position. Did that policy ever get challenged?

 

Nope, the reality is - the property has been handed over to them in a condition. The return of that property legally has to be less 'reasonable wear and tear'
If there is any damage, they are responsible. If they don't believe they are the cause, they need to notify Police and advise our office of report number.
I'm could just be a grumpy old woman these days but I generally don't believe them unless they have proof.

No one has challenged this, they are probably too scared to with me. However, I would be putting up a good argument before the adjudicator if there is damage to the property - I do all our court hearings and I'm not shy to express my opinions. If I'm wrong I'm wrong they'll tell me and I'll learn from it.

 

The PM is not there to be like (all the time).

 

An update. The tenant has paid for the replacement handle as she did not want to make a police report. Thanks for the replies.

 

Firstly, the legal test is not what you describe. Forget about 'reasonable wear and tear' - that term gets thrown around way too much without hardly anyone knowing what it actually means.

A tenant is only liable for any damage they intentionally or negligently cause. The onus of proof is on the claimant - the landlord. This means the tenant has to have done something wrong, which led to the damage, and the landlord or agent has to prove it to the civil standard.

And the whole attitude of 'having a crack' at court/tribunal - well this is a personal bugbear of mine. Fair enough if its just your own matter, but if we're talking about a professional who is representing clients, then I don't think just having a crack without proper reference to the law is good enough to take a matter to hearing.

When I was a duty lawyer at the courts, it was heaps of this kind of stuff that clogged up the court lists, wasted everyone's time, and left the loser (landlord and property managers usually) pretty bitter about wasting their time and money. Of course, they thought it was the fact that the courts were biased against landlords - and hence the myth continues.

 

That was our thinking

 

funny what some people would do to try and get their way

 

insurance companies also have a similar requirement - if a person claims a insured item is 'stolen'

 

Lol @thatbum - we are only property managers not lawyers.
Fair wear and tear is what we are legally given to work with - s188
We have to go to tribunal anyway to get compensation. My approach is just to make it clear to tenants who should reasonably pay for what.