tribunal hearing

[im sparticus]

Ok another not so hypothetical, hypothetical.

I have a friend who we will just refer to as sam

anyhow sam recently moved out of his townhouse that he lived in for 2 years and had brand new but very cheap carpet installed and obviously not professionally cleaned prior to sam moving in.

upon moving out sam rented a steam cleaner and personally steamcleaned the carpets himself believing he had restored them to their original condition giving consideration to 2 years normal wear and tear.

when handing the keys the property manager demanded a reciept for professional steam cleaning saying only professional steam cleaning was acceptible sam disagrees and they say they will carry out the inspection and let sam know

afew days later they ring sam to let him know they believe the carpets need professional steam cleaning by there preffered people (they have photos to prove, acording to sam there are no stains or dirty spots carpet is in good nick just afew slightly pail spots where he used stain remover that you can only notice in the correct light) at a cost to sam of $110 sam says he cannot agree to $110 as he is already out of pocket for the rental and has a quote from a pro steam cleaner for $59 he can even organise it or provide them with the number the cleaning can be carried out as soon as tomorrow, the agent disagrees stating that a $59 clean will not be good enough.

sam call dept of fair trading and they tell him that the agent cannot specify how the carpets are returned to their former glory just that he believes they have, sam then tells the agent he doesnot concent to any claim made against his bond and files for a tribunal hearing and freezes the bond as he believes the agent are requesting the pro out of principal not necessity.

so any guesses as to what will happen at the tribunal

1, sam is right does not have to pay for a pro

2, sam is wrong but can use his pro @ $59 (he has documentation to support this)

3, sam is wrong and has to pay the agent $110

 

[Alabex]

Sam doesnt have to use a professional cleaner. As long as the carpets are restored to the condition they were when he moved in, bearing in mind some wear and tear over 2 years of use, that is fine.

Fight it at the tribunal. It is generally very 'pro' tenant. If there were no other problems and it is only a couple of carpet marks i would say that sam is likely to win if:

a) he takes a receipt saying he hired a cleaner and did it himself
b) he gets access to the property and takes some of his own photos (the agent should allow this)
c) he can possibly show that it didn't adversly affect the re-letting. I.e if it has re-rented straight away.

 

[Minxdamanx]

Did Sam's original lease say professional steam cleaning? If so, did it specify which company to use?

If neither of the above I would have though Sam didn't have a case to answer.

Our tenant leases specify professional steam cleaning, but not which company - though I do want proof that it's been done with a receipt.

 

[Collector]

This comes up all the time.

Sam does not have to have the carpets professionally steamed cleaned, even if the ingoing condition states that the carpets have been proffessionally steamed cleaned.

In the past alot of agents added a clause to the addittional terms of the lease saying that at the end of the tenancy the carpets are to be professionally steamed cleaned - this clause is illegal.

Sam needs to prove nothing at the tribunal, his receipt from hiring the equipment may be needed.

It is up to the agent to prove that the carpets required steam cleaning.

Was Sam present for the Outgoing inspection, did Sam recieve a copy od the Outgoing inspection report from the agent?


IMO - Sam only needs to be at the hearing, my guess is that the agent wont even turn up - they are just bluffing

 

[Alabex]

Although the onus of proof will be on the agent, Sam is best to be prepared by having relevant receipts and photos if possible. This will put him in an even better posistion.

I also doubt that the agent/owner would follow through with a claim at the tribunal.

 

[Mokey]

In the past alot of agents added a clause to the addittional terms of the lease saying that at the end of the tenancy the carpets are to be professionally steamed cleaned - this clause is illegal.

Hi Collector,

Could you please tell me if it is only illegal in certain states to add this clause? I have had a number of Qld leases over the years and every one without fail contained this clause. Do you know of any websites/publications I can refer to in the future if I am presented with a tenancy agreement containing this clause?

 

[Collector]

Hi Collector,

Could you please tell me if it is only illegal in certain states to add this clause? I have had a number of Qld leases over the years and every one without fail contained this clause. Do you know of any websites/publications I can refer to in the future if I am presented with a tenancy agreement containing this clause?

Don't know about QLD, in NSW the clause is invalid

 

[im sparticus]

Cheers for the replys guys Ill let you know how "sam" goes.

 

[boomtown]

Report the PM to the ACCC for third line forcing. The PM has committed a serious offence under the Trade Practices Act.

More information here:

http://www.mallesons.com/publications/2005/Nov/8201946w.htm

 

[im sparticus]

Thanks for the link boomtown very interesting

Sam can either:

1,surrender and agree to $110

or

2 put a further $33 at risk to what will then be at the very worst of odds a cointoss for the win. (two possible outcomes though its probably better odds than 50/50 as some have said previously the onus is on the agent to disprove sam)


which move is strategically/mathematically correct.(ie, best expectancy for sam)??

1, definate $110 loss

or

2,a ($143 worstoutcome/nil loss best outcome) coin toss

what implied odds would sam need as a minimum to make the hearing a positive expectancy move in relation to the $110 definate loss?