This is purely academic at this stage (we've since vacated and moved cities) but I'm curious as to who was actually liable for some costs incurred during our last tenancy. (My husband and I rent for now. Saving to buy.)
We rented a two-bedroom flat on the top floor of a block of units. It was an older-style block, and a great unit, though run-down, with original late-60s fittings (and, frankly, probably the original carpet, too).
The design was odd - there were no windows in the bathroom, toilet or laundry, as they ran along a common wall. The flat next door was a mirror of ours. Instead of windows, there was a ventilation fan which worked automatically. All fine.
Last January, there was some sort of issue with the ventilation. I've no idea what it was; we certainly had no problems at our place. The upshot was that in their wisdom, Strata turned the ventilation off.
As soon as the weather cooled, last April/May, mould began to flower on our bathroom ceiling. We tried to clean it off, but failed despite strenuous efforts. It hung on tenaciously, then within days sprouted on the ceiling of the laundry, loo and master bedroom.
No problem, we thought. We're not professional cleaners; let's call people who are. We called the RE, got the name of their cleaners, had them around and paid for the mould to be cleaned off. No more mould. The cleaner told us it was the most spectacular mould he'd seen in ages and that even as a professional it had been tough to get it all. It certainly looked like a full-on production to get it off.
Sadly, however, it rained again a few weeks later and bingo! It was back, with a vengeance. We called the RE and expressed concern that the mould was a result of the ventilation not working properly. It was at this point that the RE told us Strata had killed the ventilation.
Well, we weren't happy, but we're asthmatic, so we called around the cleaner again, paid him again, and passed the bill onto the RE. We asked if some portion of it could be reimbursed to us by Strata or the landlord. He got back to us and said the landlord wouldn't pay, so they'd pursue Strata.
(I tend to agree with this. The landlord didn't turn of the vents, it was the idiots on the body corporate who did that. The landlord was absentee, overseas, and didn't attend meetings.)
We also pressed for Strata to turn the vents back on. Of course, Strata wouldn't talk to renters, no matter how much we sent letters twisting our metaphorical caps in our hands; we had to go via the RE. After several months of pestering the RE, the vents went back on, but not before a third spectacular flowering of mould. We pressed the RE to have Strata or the landlord pay for this, given we'd paid the first two times and Strata completely ignored our RE's requests to reimburse us for the second cleaning. No dice. They ignored us.
So, the question is: should Strata really have been liable for this? We never did get the money back (not that I care by now; too much grief), and the ceiling wasn't cleaned until after we'd given up and moved out. At the landlord's cost, I imagine.
From the landlord's point of view I imagine this would have been hugely frustrating, too - not only are her ceilings compromised, but she lost good tenants (we're tidy, pay on time, no pets and had been there four years etc.) in favour of the unknown quantity of whoever she got when we left.
Any thoughts?
We rented a two-bedroom flat on the top floor of a block of units. It was an older-style block, and a great unit, though run-down, with original late-60s fittings (and, frankly, probably the original carpet, too).
The design was odd - there were no windows in the bathroom, toilet or laundry, as they ran along a common wall. The flat next door was a mirror of ours. Instead of windows, there was a ventilation fan which worked automatically. All fine.
Last January, there was some sort of issue with the ventilation. I've no idea what it was; we certainly had no problems at our place. The upshot was that in their wisdom, Strata turned the ventilation off.
As soon as the weather cooled, last April/May, mould began to flower on our bathroom ceiling. We tried to clean it off, but failed despite strenuous efforts. It hung on tenaciously, then within days sprouted on the ceiling of the laundry, loo and master bedroom.
No problem, we thought. We're not professional cleaners; let's call people who are. We called the RE, got the name of their cleaners, had them around and paid for the mould to be cleaned off. No more mould. The cleaner told us it was the most spectacular mould he'd seen in ages and that even as a professional it had been tough to get it all. It certainly looked like a full-on production to get it off.
Sadly, however, it rained again a few weeks later and bingo! It was back, with a vengeance. We called the RE and expressed concern that the mould was a result of the ventilation not working properly. It was at this point that the RE told us Strata had killed the ventilation.
Well, we weren't happy, but we're asthmatic, so we called around the cleaner again, paid him again, and passed the bill onto the RE. We asked if some portion of it could be reimbursed to us by Strata or the landlord. He got back to us and said the landlord wouldn't pay, so they'd pursue Strata.
(I tend to agree with this. The landlord didn't turn of the vents, it was the idiots on the body corporate who did that. The landlord was absentee, overseas, and didn't attend meetings.)
We also pressed for Strata to turn the vents back on. Of course, Strata wouldn't talk to renters, no matter how much we sent letters twisting our metaphorical caps in our hands; we had to go via the RE. After several months of pestering the RE, the vents went back on, but not before a third spectacular flowering of mould. We pressed the RE to have Strata or the landlord pay for this, given we'd paid the first two times and Strata completely ignored our RE's requests to reimburse us for the second cleaning. No dice. They ignored us.
So, the question is: should Strata really have been liable for this? We never did get the money back (not that I care by now; too much grief), and the ceiling wasn't cleaned until after we'd given up and moved out. At the landlord's cost, I imagine.
From the landlord's point of view I imagine this would have been hugely frustrating, too - not only are her ceilings compromised, but she lost good tenants (we're tidy, pay on time, no pets and had been there four years etc.) in favour of the unknown quantity of whoever she got when we left.
Any thoughts?
