Being in the property management business, I obviously network alot with other pm's and hear lots of different stories. Here are 2 recent tenancy tribunal cases which I thought could have been ruled with a little more logic on the part of the tribunal. Both in SA:
Case 1.
Tenants want to vacate and pm issues them with a $100 cleaning bill because the house was not left up to scratch.
Tenant's then take the pm and landlord to the tribunal to ask for money back from the landlord for something that happened 12 months earlier!.
They claimed that they had asked for an automatic rollerdoor to be repaired and the landlord took 3 months to do it. This part was true!
In those 3 months, the tenants had washed 2 US basketball tops valued at $700 and put them up on the clothes line. They were stollen and claimed that the thieves got in throught the garage rollardoor which should have been repaird by the landlord.
The facts:
The event happened 12 months earlier and the tribunal case was the first time both the landlord and pm were made aware of it.
There was no police record of recording a buglary
There was no reciept for the $700 T-Shirts nor was there any other proof of ownership.
Although the landlord took 3 months to repair the automatic sensors, the garage rollerdoor could have been locked manually from the inside!
The verdict: The landlord was ordered to pay for a replacement of the basketball tops becuase the repair requested by the tenants was not done in a timely manner
Case 2:
Tenant was taken to the tribunal by the pm for being in rent arrears for a month.
The judge asked what was the weekly rent?
pm said $400 per week
Facts:
The judge did not ask where the house was or what the market rent was
He did not ask what the tenants salary was
Verdict:
The judge actually stated "how do you expect someone to afford $400 per week, I certainly can't on my salary" That is way too much.
The tenant was allowed to leave and pay $20 per fortnight to catch up the rent arrears!!!
To me these 2 cases proove that the tenancy tribunal is pro-tenant and against "rich landlords taking advantage of poor battlers"
Absolutely ridicilous, just had to share these!
Case 1.
Tenants want to vacate and pm issues them with a $100 cleaning bill because the house was not left up to scratch.
Tenant's then take the pm and landlord to the tribunal to ask for money back from the landlord for something that happened 12 months earlier!.
They claimed that they had asked for an automatic rollerdoor to be repaired and the landlord took 3 months to do it. This part was true!
In those 3 months, the tenants had washed 2 US basketball tops valued at $700 and put them up on the clothes line. They were stollen and claimed that the thieves got in throught the garage rollardoor which should have been repaird by the landlord.
The facts:
The event happened 12 months earlier and the tribunal case was the first time both the landlord and pm were made aware of it.
There was no police record of recording a buglary
There was no reciept for the $700 T-Shirts nor was there any other proof of ownership.
Although the landlord took 3 months to repair the automatic sensors, the garage rollerdoor could have been locked manually from the inside!
The verdict: The landlord was ordered to pay for a replacement of the basketball tops becuase the repair requested by the tenants was not done in a timely manner
Case 2:
Tenant was taken to the tribunal by the pm for being in rent arrears for a month.
The judge asked what was the weekly rent?
pm said $400 per week
Facts:
The judge did not ask where the house was or what the market rent was
He did not ask what the tenants salary was
Verdict:
The judge actually stated "how do you expect someone to afford $400 per week, I certainly can't on my salary" That is way too much.
The tenant was allowed to leave and pay $20 per fortnight to catch up the rent arrears!!!
To me these 2 cases proove that the tenancy tribunal is pro-tenant and against "rich landlords taking advantage of poor battlers"
Absolutely ridicilous, just had to share these!
