PM's advice doesn't seem quite right?

[Scott No Mates]

Whether you receive $140 or $1,400 - are you going to be replacing the benchtop?

Sure it's unpalatable but a handyman can cut a square of laminate and reglue it into position but it won't be pretty.

 

[Mamaof3]

Whether you receive $140 or $1,400 - are you going to be replacing the benchtop?

Sure it's unpalatable but a handyman can cut a square of laminate and reglue it into position but it won't be pretty.

Absolutely we would. Its a brand new property so we would like it back in the state we handed it to the tenants.

 

[Mamaof3]

If a tenant puts a burn mark from an iron into the carpet, I believe you will not have a hope of having the carpet replaced, but only repaired, if that.

Same with a bench top. Same if they scratch a polished timber floor. My parents had all these things happen, and the tenants were not liable to replace any of the things, via the tribunal. It sucks, but that is the way it is.

I guess you could replace it using insurance, but this seems to be a bit of a grey area with tenants.

Actually this very thing happened to another rental of ours last year. House is approximately 5yrs old. Final inspection noticed a 20cm x 20cm area of carpet that had been damaged from what appeared to be an iron. We had brand new carpets laid in that room and the PM arranged for it to be deducted from their bond so we were fully reimbursed.

 

[Mamaof3]

Might not be fair, but that does not count some days in front of the magistrate. I've had brand new carpets burnt with multiple cigarette butts beyond repair, despite no smoking inside in lease, and was awarded just a small percentage.
As for the bench top, one way I have got out of that in the past was a glass cutting board inserted into top. Of course it depends on where burn is.

Again very similar story to the last post about our other rental and we were awarded full reimbursement costs for new carpet in that bedroom.

It sounds like there's variances between PM's and what they will push to claim for. I guess its not until the Tenant disputes the claim and the case is heard at the Tribunal that we know what the official stance is with things like this.

 

[thatbum]

I guess its not until the Tenant disputes the claim and the case is heard at the Tribunal that we know what the official stance is with things like this.

I just told you the official stance.

 

[Mamaof3]

I just told you the official stance.

I believe thats simply your interpretation of how you understand it, its not official unless its a decision from the Tribunal.

 

[thatbum]

I believe thats simply your interpretation of how you understand it, its not official unless its a decision from the Tribunal.

I suppose that's technically true.

You sound a lot like one of my old traffic offence clients though: "Well that's just your opinion - I'm not guilty until the Magistrate says so"

 

[Mamaof3]

I suppose that's technically true.

You sound a lot like one of my old traffic offence clients though: "Well that's just your opinion - I'm not guilty until the Magistrate says so"

As you can see from the numerous posts above, everyone seems to have their own understanding/interpretation of what they believe what I should be entitled to as reimbursement (just like I have an opinion about the same) and the examples given about the carpet in an earlier post is a classic example of where 2 people who had almost identical circumstances (i.e. the burnt carpet in rental property caused by tenant) but the results/decisions were very different (i.e 1 landlord got nil/minimal reimbursement and the other full replacement with brand new carpets).

I make that point because I said earlier I guess only when it gets to the Tribunal that we'll know what the official stance is, to which you replied "I just told you what the official stance is" . Bit different to a traffic offence....traffic offences are more black and white....you either ran a red light or you didn't. I'm not saying you're right or wrong but I am suggesting that your interpretation may not be right (which you appear to slightly disagree with!)

 

[thatbum]

As you can see from the numerous posts above, everyone seems to have their own understanding/interpretation of what they believe what I should be entitled to as reimbursement (just like I have an opinion about the same) and the examples given about the carpet in an earlier post is a classic example of where 2 people who had almost identical circumstances (i.e. the burnt carpet in rental property caused by tenant) but the results/decisions were very different (i.e 1 landlord got nil/minimal reimbursement and the other full replacement with brand new carpets).

I make that point because I said earlier I guess only when it gets to the Tribunal that we'll know what the official stance is, to which you replied "I just told you what the official stance is" . Bit different to a traffic offence....traffic offences are more black and white....you either ran a red light or you didn't. I'm not saying you're right or wrong but I am suggesting that your interpretation may not be right (which you appear to slightly disagree with!)

You do realise I'm a solicitor that extensively practises in residential tenancy law? I lecture at law school on the subject, and am currently acting as a consultant to Tenancy WA.

I'd like to think my "interpretation" carries a little more weight than the average punter.

Its true you can never be sure what might happen at tribunal, but what I'm saying is the best practice for quantum of damage.

 

[Sez]

In VIC where I have had instances where there was damage in a brand new house the good tenants are happy to pay the costs without attending VCAT. That's when it's easy to get the full amount.

Where I have had to go to tribunal I have always lodged the claim for the full amount of repairs - when the tenant is present and the member starts discussing deductions due to size etc be the reasonable one and put forward a suggestion of a 5% reduction to the tenants cost (so for a $1400 bench, they would be paying $1330), state that that 5% deduction is to represent the age of the bench top (1 year) and account for depreciation. It can make you look more reasonable and it gets the member deciding on something before they decide the tenant should only pay $200 for a small area! Don't bring this up until it looks like it's not going your way though!!

 

[Peterw]

You do realise I'm a solicitor that extensively practises in residential tenancy law? I lecture at law school on the subject, and am currently acting as a consultant to Tenancy WA.

I'd like to think my "interpretation" carries a little more weight than the average punter.

Its true you can never be sure what might happen at tribunal, but what I'm saying is the best practice for quantum of damage.

I am sorry to say however your opening comment

"You do realise ... etc..." very interesting. That is not in your profile ... so how would any one "realize" that?

That said, comments from people that are "qualified" are always valuable however I sadly believe the Acts and Rules do vary a bit State by State, and then add to that, the variation that agents receive in decisions is unbelievable.

We had a "glaring" stain in 3 year old carpet determined to be fair wear and tare by one member.

The best we can do it advise LL's of the range of possible outcomes if it went to the tribunal, however the PM's should at least start to have a face to face with the tenant to see what can be negotiated. Some may fairly readily agree, yes I damaged something near new to replacement is fair. However if it has a join, say at a corner, then they may say, I will cover the cost of a section, that covers that damaged area. That may be the solution. The reality is that the property will experience " lumps and bumps" over time. So getting bits of reimbursement here and there, may in the end work out to be good cover, rather than getting rejected at the tribunal.

Just adding my food for thought