We are having problem with our managing agent now. MICM (Melbourne Inner City Management).
In one of our apartment, we found that when the current tenants moved in 2 years ago, there were many things in the Incoming Conditions Report noted by the tenant that
-carpet has stains
-blinds control wand is broken (in 2 rooms)
-chipped floor tiles
-dusty blinds
All these were done by the previous tenants. The current tenant noted in their handwriting these damages that they saw. The agent merely ticked in the ratings boxes "Ok condition" or "good condition".
Now we are trying to ask MICM why didn't they deduct the previous tenant's bond (whichever tenant was responsible), and MICM just claims that they do not know which of the previous tenants did it, and they are classifying it as "wear and tear" (because MICM says it is not malicious damage, no bond was deducted - excuses excuses). The second excuse they give is - "The property is more than 15 years old (built in 1997). So does it mean if the property is more than 15 years old the tenants can do whatever they want and walk away free and call it wear and tear? Also MICM has been the manager for every tenant since the beginning.
I remember when I was renting last year in Sydney, a small accidental scratch on the floor board by my bed costed me $400 deducted from my bond by L J Hooker. And that apartment I rented was built in the early 1990s.
As for the dusty blinds remark on the incoming conditions report by my current tenant, MICM says "it is subjective how dusty it is - a matter of perspective".
So basically
-Chipped tiles = wear and tear
-dusty blinds = it is a subjective matter (now the current tenant is never going to clean the blinds because it was dusty to begin with).
- carpet stain = wear and tear
- broken blinds = maintenance issue ("and we don't know which tenant broke them anyway")
Now MICM is telling us to bear all the cost for these items.
Is this normal for an agent to shrug shoulders and push everything to the Owner to fix?
When I confronted the agent about these damages, the agent told me they could not find any photos (they say they didn't have the practise of taking photos during inspection in the past), basically they don't know which tenant caused the damages even when they have been managing every tenant of the property since the beginning.
In one of our apartment, we found that when the current tenants moved in 2 years ago, there were many things in the Incoming Conditions Report noted by the tenant that
-carpet has stains
-blinds control wand is broken (in 2 rooms)
-chipped floor tiles
-dusty blinds
All these were done by the previous tenants. The current tenant noted in their handwriting these damages that they saw. The agent merely ticked in the ratings boxes "Ok condition" or "good condition".
Now we are trying to ask MICM why didn't they deduct the previous tenant's bond (whichever tenant was responsible), and MICM just claims that they do not know which of the previous tenants did it, and they are classifying it as "wear and tear" (because MICM says it is not malicious damage, no bond was deducted - excuses excuses). The second excuse they give is - "The property is more than 15 years old (built in 1997). So does it mean if the property is more than 15 years old the tenants can do whatever they want and walk away free and call it wear and tear? Also MICM has been the manager for every tenant since the beginning.
I remember when I was renting last year in Sydney, a small accidental scratch on the floor board by my bed costed me $400 deducted from my bond by L J Hooker. And that apartment I rented was built in the early 1990s.
As for the dusty blinds remark on the incoming conditions report by my current tenant, MICM says "it is subjective how dusty it is - a matter of perspective".
So basically
-Chipped tiles = wear and tear
-dusty blinds = it is a subjective matter (now the current tenant is never going to clean the blinds because it was dusty to begin with).
- carpet stain = wear and tear
- broken blinds = maintenance issue ("and we don't know which tenant broke them anyway")
Now MICM is telling us to bear all the cost for these items.
Is this normal for an agent to shrug shoulders and push everything to the Owner to fix?
When I confronted the agent about these damages, the agent told me they could not find any photos (they say they didn't have the practise of taking photos during inspection in the past), basically they don't know which tenant caused the damages even when they have been managing every tenant of the property since the beginning.