Friend got $8000 bill from previous rental

Hi Guys,

One of my friend was recently moved out of a rental property as he bought his own house. He was in the rental property for 10 years which was brand new when he moved in.

Now he had to go to the tribunal because the landlord/PM are asking for money to:

1). replace carpets
2). paint
3). dishwasher
etc....

He tells me that it is normal wear and tear which you would expect for a property that has been rented for 10 years even if it was brand new.

From the tribunal the judge favoured landlord/PM.

What options does he have now?

Thanks.
 
There has to be more to this story.Were animals soiling on the carpet...or damage to the carpets, such as holes or stains that cannot be removed?

Carpets should not need to be replaced after 10 years.


Were there holes, dents,etc to the walls?
Were there crayon/marker all over the walls that need to be sealed before it can be just painted.
Was it a nonsmoking home, and the tenant smoked?

We painted once in our house of 18 years.
With tenants, it seems to be an ongoing ordeal.

Countertops/benches that are burned within a year, and never once when it was an owner occupied of 24 years.

Many tenants just don't care.
Must have been bad for the judge to rule in favor of the landlord. They don't like to.
 
I've got to agree with Kathryn. From my experience, the tribunal very much favours the tenant, so for them to be saying that the tenant must pays tells me that it was not fair wear and tear. In most cases the PM would have had to take photographic evidence too.

I would suggest there is more to this than what your friend is telling you.
 
I am also rather dubious about this.

I'd love to hear the reasoning behind the claims and the justification from the tribunal. Maybe some photos and evidence from the other party involved may help me sway my thoughts, but without any evidence and only here say, then i must admit as being rather sceptical.

If this were true, i hope the landlord concerned wasn't double dipping in claiming insurance AND suing the tenant at the same time....

One question, was this in Canberra? I recently had an experience in Canberra due to a tenant taking a body corporate that i sit on to the Tribunal. What a real hassle - but that is another story.....



g
 
WOW - if the tribunnal ruled against him then I would be HIGHLY surprised if it was reasonable wear and tear. After such a long tenancy, even unreasonably wear and tear tends to get through...

From this I can only draw 2 assumptions,

1) He really trashed the place (did you actually see how bad it was, it is amazing what some tenant believe is reasonable).

2) He decided to really **** off and offend the member who was hearing the case...
 
Last edited:
He has been living there 10yrs. Tell him not to worry, let the LL take him to tribunnal, unless he went around with a spraycan and trashed the place, it is reasonable wear and tear.

If he is really worried get him to talk to the local tenants advocacy service, they should be able to put his mind at ease.


Disclaimer: Opinion only, etc etc....

Rugrat, I read the OP as he had already been to the tribunal and lost.

From the tribunal the judge favoured landlord/PM.

What options does he have now?

Thanks.
 
Originally Posted by gg1965 View Post
--------------
I recently had an experience in Canberra due to a tenant taking a body corporate that i sit on to the Tribunal. What a real hassle - but that is another story.....
---------

If you have time could you write about this? Thanks.

I can't at the moment as there is still a chance that we may need to go to a formal hearing. Another meeting is organised and that will decide on whetehr a formal meeting will take place.

So at this stage, i don't want to make any comments on a public forum.

I will sum the process up once it is all finished with.


g
 
Thanks for the replies all.

I will try to answer few questions but I dont know the full story and can only go by what he told me.

The property is in Canberra.

As far as I know there were no holes in the family.

He has small kids so maybe there could have been marks on the wall?

He said there were photos shown during the hearing and also he says he might of pissed off the judge....

The tenant did not smoke and live with his family.

One question I have is how can the tenant find out if the LL is double dipping (claiming LL insurance) ?

Thanks.
 
One question I have is how can the tenant find out if the LL is double dipping (claiming LL insurance) ?

He cannot - and it is none of his business anyway. That will be a matter between the insurance company and their client (his LL).

What he can be assured of, is that if the LL is making a claim, that the insurance company will do their own DD and make sure they do not pay out monies for a claim that cannot also be recovered from the tenant. So the insurance company will be all over the tribunal's findings anyway.
 
One question I have is how can the tenant find out if the LL is double dipping (claiming LL insurance) ?

Why would you want to become embroiled in this? Let your friend find out if he wants or needs to, but I would stay out of it.

Edit: Just re-read your question, and realised your friend wants to find out, and not you. Sorry. But I also just read Prop's answer and this pretty much covers it. Insurance company will chase it up.
 
Last edited:
There's a difference between wear and tear, and damage.

Eg, carpet - carpet worn in main traffic area is wear and tear, coffee stain on carpet is damage.
 
Now he had to go to the tribunal because the landlord/PM are asking for money to:

1). replace carpets
2). paint
3). dishwasher
etc....

He tells me that it is normal wear and tear which you would expect for a property that has been rented for 10 years even if it was brand new.

There is one major thing that seems to be over looked here:

INSPECTIONS, the landlord or PM should have complained at the last inspection, so all this has happened in 3 - 6 months since last inspection?
 
There is one major thing that seems to be over looked here:

INSPECTIONS, the landlord or PM should have complained at the last inspection, so all this has happened in 3 - 6 months since last inspection?

What is there to complain about until the tenant moves.
If the tenant stayed another 10 years, replacing the carpets and painting would be a given.
Until all the furniture is gone, it can be difficult to see how much damage has been done. Tenants can be very good at camouflaging damage under pictures, rugs, chairs etc
 
What is there to complain about until the tenant moves.
What so your saying if the PM sees damage they go "well that's ok as the tenant will be there to live in the mess"? So what is the point of inspections?
If the tenant stayed another 10 years, replacing the carpets and painting would be a given.
Until all the furniture is gone, it can be difficult to see how much damage has been done. Tenants can be very good at camouflaging damage under pictures, rugs, chairs etc
Well the PM must not be doing a great job but how do you know this damage was hidden? In fact if it is $8,000 worth it doesn't sound very hidden to me, more like the whole place was in bad condition. I stand by what I said that the PM has done a lousy job here unless we hear otherwise.
 
Top