Holy renovation...

[Lil Skater]

So I was reading a story earlier from another property manager on Facebook, and had permission to share with you.

The tenant thought they'd undertake a small renovation project.. Bare with me!

"I manage a block of units, two storey. Unit 1 downstairs has been vacant for about 6 months, unit 2 is upstairs and tenanted. My tenant of unit 2 decided he needed more space, so cut a hole through the concrete floor to unit 1 and removed unit 1's kitchen and marked the wall where he intended to install some stairs.

But wait... There's more!

He decided unit 1 wasn't enough, so he knocked a hole through the double brick wall into unit 4 as well.

He had told the neighbours in unit 3 that he was the owner and is undertaking some renovations, so they didn't bat an eyelid when they heard the concrete saw in operation.

I only discovered it when I opened unit 4 for an open inspection, and saw a gaping hole in the wall!

Never in my career have I seen anything like it, and luckily I have a great owner who was in hysterics of the incredulity of the situation. The tenant has been charged with criminal damage and burglary."



Makes a few weeks rent loss seem trivial!

 

[Richard Feynman]

.........wow.

 

[Perp]

Holy snapping duckshit! That's taking the saying "it is better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission" to extremes...

 

[handyandy]

LL took tenant to tribunal and member put it down to normal wear and tear - just joking but can you imagine. lol

 

[Lil Skater]

When I first read it I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry for the agent and landlord!

Although the agent seems to have a good sense of humour about the whole thing - even though it will be a challenge to get it all fixed!

I'm just in awe that anyone could even comprehend that that would be a good idea/they wouldn't notice!

Lol, Handyandy - it wouldn't surprise me sometimes!

 

[geoffw]

Bare with me!

I'd be happy to "bear" with you. But hubby James might not be happy if we were to "bare" with you ;-)

 

[Lil Skater]

I'd be happy to "bear" with you. But hubby James might not be happy if we were to "bare" with you ;-)

Well, you never know!

Good pick up though, I'm usually a grammar/spelling nazi!

 

[Peterw]

LS, while I could also share some stories, however none would go close to that. Why was flat 1 vacant for 6 months?

 

[willair]

He decided unit 1 wasn't enough, so he knocked a hole through the double brick wall into unit 4 as well.

He had told the neighbours in unit 3 that he was the owner and is undertaking some renovations, so they didn't bat an eyelid when they heard the concrete saw in operation.

Just have to ask,how does all this stand up in insurance terms,it's a wonder he did not start to collect the rents..

 

[Lil Skater]

LS, while I could also share some stories, however none would go close to that. Why was flat 1 vacant for 6 months?

Peter, unfortunately I have no idea. This was a story from another property manager who I don't know personally.

Just have to ask,how does all this stand up in insurance terms,it's a wonder he did not start to collect the rents..

Obviously I haven't dealt with the situation before, but I assume it would go under malicious damage. If not, they have been charged and the landlord has good grounds to sue.

I'm surprised he didn't try to collect the rent of unit 3 either. I have had one or two of those - but it doesn't get anywhere as the tenant that has been approached calls the agent to double check.

 

[Andrew_A]

Very funny if not the landlord!

 

[brettc]

Obviously I haven't dealt with the situation before, but I assume it would go under malicious damage. If not, they have been charged and the landlord has good grounds to sue.

Actually this is one that could be a little tricky depending on the policy/ies they have in place. If the policy covered "malicious damage" only, and not "accidental damage" or even "deliberate and intentional damage", as many of them do, the Insurer may have a way to try to deny the claim.

"Malicious Damage" is a term that requires that the damage was not only caused deliberately but done with "malicious intent", essentially that the purpose of causing the damage was in fact for the sole purpose of causing damage, whether it be out of spite or anything else.

The damage in this case was caused with the intent of renovations, they were not damaging the walls for damage sake, but instead trying to expand their living space. The damage was effectively a consequence of trying to improve their living space.

One would like to think however that even if the policy technically only covered malicious damage, sanity would prevail.

 

[Ausprop]

that takes it to a whole 'new level'!!

not quite as bad as that... had a mate rent out his apartment, pride and joy PPOR. so the tenant decides one day he wants to put up new stereo TV speakers, gets an angle grinder out and cuts a 45 degree line each side of the TV into the plaster work. neatly recesses the cables, bodgily patches over. doesn't bother to repaint.

 

[DaveM]

Did his bond cover it?

 

[Lil Skater]

One would like to think however that even if the policy technically only covered malicious damage, sanity would prevail.

Ah there you go.

One would hope that EBM would cover that

not quite as bad as that... had a mate rent out his apartment, pride and joy PPOR. so the tenant decides one day he wants to put up new stereo TV speakers, gets an angle grinder out and cuts a 45 degree line each side of the TV into the plaster work. neatly recesses the cables, bodgily patches over. doesn't bother to repaint.

As you do! I'm actually not that surprised about this one though, I have seen it before.

Did his bond cover it?

I'd imagine not, then again it was in St Kilda so you never know

 

[brettc]

Ah there you go.

One would hope that EBM would cover that

You can never say anything for sure until an entire claim is in front of you, but the "malicious damage" definition is not an issue for us as we cover both "malicious" and "accidental" damage. I've been saying for 20 years that it's one of the most important features to look out for as it removes a real trap.

 

[Lil Skater]

You can never say anything for sure until an entire claim is in front of you

Fair point.

Turns out this tenant was at the property for 5 years, never any problems, until now.

 

[vbplease]

Unit 1 was vacant for 6months.. It would have been a waste not to combine the two.

 

[Aaron Sice]

i daresay that would move out of LL insurance and back into civil proceedings.

talk about entitlement mentality!

 

[esh]

Lmao. wow that's crazy. I wonder if he was on drugs or some incident just changed his life. Normal people just dont do that, or anything close to it.

And I cnt believe he was a long term tenant , I would expect that from a newbie