Wear and tear or breakage?

[fisherman]

The tenant broke the plastic handle on a dishwasher soon after commencing the tenancy. It was a clean break without any evidence of yellowing from a prior crack. The tenant says it is wear and tear and the PM agrees. The house is in Qld.

If this is so and I do not know what RTA or Tribunal rulings have been, landlords will be constantly up for amounts in the vicinity of $160 for the service call-outs plus the cost of the parts, because no modern electrical appliance can withstand use that doesn't involve some care. For comparison, doors on top load or front load washing machines and plastic controls are particularly susceptible to damage.

So what is it to be? Another of my responsibilities and more tenants' rights. (Sorry for that last sentence but that has been the constant direction of tenancy regulations and interpretations in Qld)

 

[Goofy]

Unfortunately for you, i think this would be a case of, unless you can proove tenant negligently used the machine and broke the handle then you would be liable for the cost.

Most appliances these days are made to break not made to last, it is possible that it did just actually break, and while there is the misconception that all tenants are liars, most are actually pretty honest and do the right thing- ie pay for things when they break them. If something like this went to a tribunal (i doubt it matters which state) the reality is that there is no way it would be ruled in your favour unless you are able to provde concrete evidence it broke due to misuse. Sorry

On the side is that you can at least claim it as a tax deduction...

 

[fisherman]

The handle of most appliances has two functions, to lock/unlock and to hold to guide the door open. Not depressing the lock properly before opening, for instance by rushing or careless or rough use will break most appliances.

Unless it is argued that most appliances are not designed for their intended purpose, which could not be proved against a manufacturer as any claim for warranty in these cases would prove.

I had a similar case, different tenants, where the electrically operated safety lock to prevent the door of a front load clothes washer was broken through the tenant not reading the manual provided.

I am not arguing but trying to establish where the tenants are liable for breakages. Or why they should even take care. I assume that tenants who read manuals and generally take care of appliances would similarly be concerned. It all adds to overheads and ultimately to rents.

 

[Propertunity]

....trying to establish where the tenants are liable for breakages.

Almost never......it is all wear & tear - as a LL you just have to suck it up. Remember not to sweat the small stuff. We're in the property CG business not the tenant business (although that part is an unfortunate by-product sometimes)

 

[tobe]

If you wanted to sweat the small stuff, have some simple instructions for the white goods laminated and left at the property/stuck on the laundry door etc.

Most people (me most especially) wont read instruction manuals supplied by the manufacturer. they might however read your simple instructions, and are more likely to follow them/be careful, if they infer from that that you are genuinily interested.

Most landlords arent, or at least this would be most tenants perception.

 

[kathryn d]

How old is the dishwasher?
If it is still new, call the manufacturer and ask for a replacement.(even if it isn't, doesn't hurt to try)
Many times, companies will provide parts. Just don't mention it is in a rental...they may consider that commercial use, and not uner warranty

Rob has been repairing many things at the Roadhouse we are at, and a lot of replacement parts are free or discounted S&H, when he contacts the manufacturer.

 

[fisherman]

It is a quality machine but is now out of warranty. Fortunately parts are available.

 

[kathryn d]

Replace the part, and if the tenants break it again...it is something they are doing.

 

[Dazz]

I am not arguing but trying to establish where the tenants are liable for breakages. Or why they should even take care.

Good luck with trying to establish Tenant liabilities. You obviously don't know the RTA too well.

It all adds to overheads

Yes it most certainly does !! Your tiny little plastic handle costs about 2 or 3 days or rent over the entire property. Obviously the bulk of that is in outrageously expensive Aussie labour costs, but nevertheless you still must pay.

Whenever someone says, look on the bright side, you'll get a tax deduction for it.....that's a classic sign you've got an albatross slung around your neck.

....and ultimately to rents.

No it most certainly doesn't !! I've seen absolutely no correlation that larger expenses heaped upon residential landlords can in any way be transferred to a residential renter who is willing to pay more because of it. No way. That differential is just sucked up by the albatross owner.


The only scary part for you is, more and more, your property is being filled up with small plastic handles on just about everything, securely fastened by a micro-thin piece of plastic that if it breaks, you have to pay to replace it. Part might be $ 5.00, but it'll cost you $ 150.00 to get it replaced.

Manufacturers and tradesmen love it, renters and PMs couldn't give two hoots....and the schmuck at the end of the line holding the baby coughs up.....just the way everyone likes it.

 

[Terry_w]

Makes you want to invest in shares instead doesn't it?

 

[Player]

Makes you want to invest in shares instead doesn't it?

..........or be the handle installer/fastener

 

[mattysavager]

I would err on the side of wear and tear.

We have two buildings, built within one year of each other (about 18 months old now. of the 12 units total, 9 have broken off dishwasher handles.

They're all the same reputable european brand and model unit. Obviously poor design. When the first one went, we suspected tenant's misuse but by the 3rd one cracking off, it was pretty clear that it's poor manufacturing/design. Weak plastic that is inflexible and cracks.

I can imagine that if we only had one unit in the complex, we may not have seen the bigger picture, and tried to blame the tenant. I think either replace the handle, or just leave it and get a new dishwasher in a couple of years, and write it off on your tax.

Matt

 

[fisherman]

Thanks everyone, wear and tear it is.

Some tenants are hard on a property and we have yet to see how these go.

 

[Kristine..]

I just paid $88 for the Handyman to go out and refix the toilet roll holder to the wall in the ensuite bathroom of the exec house.

I looked at the Statement and sighed.

$88.

To go out and refix the toilet roll holder.

It doesn't bear thinking about.

On the other hand, the tenants have just copped the annual increase which has taken them to $520 per week.

Considering I built this 2 storey, 4 bedroom house at an all up cost including land, house, curtains, evap cooling etc for $186,000

Hmm. 14.53% gross rental return. Plus capital growth

I think I can wear the occasional toilet roll holder.

Cheers
Kristine

 

[Ricky]

I recently rented out a property and had a clause put into the lease.

The LG washing machine/dryer is NOT part of the lease and is the responsibility of the tenant to maintain in good working order. (excluding motor burn out).

tenant accepted this.

 

[Terry_w]

I recently rented out a property and had a clause put into the lease.

The LG washing machine/dryer is NOT part of the lease and is the responsibility of the tenant to maintain in good working order. (excluding motor burn out).

tenant accepted this.

But would the tribunal?

 

[mattysavager]

I recently rented out a property and had a clause put into the lease.

The LG washing machine/dryer is NOT part of the lease and is the responsibility of the tenant to maintain in good working order. (excluding motor burn out).

tenant accepted this.

Ricky,

Whilst the tenants may have agreed to this in writing, it will not stand up in court. The only fixture that can be barred from use is a wood-burning fireplace, and that is just due to safety. if you didn't want the tenants using it, your only guaranteed option was remove the appliance. Be cautioned that if the appliance breaks, the tenant may just accept it, or they may challenge the clause. if they challenge, they will win and you will be ordered to replace/repair at your cost.

Also - not sure about particular states, but in QLD you are also not allowed to remove these appliances in between leases for the same tenant. So if this property is in QLD, you wouldn't be able to take out that appliance until these tenants vacate.

Matt

 

[bcole2012]

I recently rented out a property and had a clause put into the lease.

The LG washing machine/dryer is NOT part of the lease and is the responsibility of the tenant to maintain in good working order. (excluding motor burn out).

tenant accepted this.

Ha - that is awesome... I didn't think of that either. It can be a minefield when you come up against tenant rights and responsibilities... but clarifying things like that makes it a little simpler!

 

[Ricky]

Thankyou for your replies.
I am not attached to any outcome, if I have to end up paying for repairs I won't lose sleep over it.

And yes, that was my intent, to try to "clarify".