Tenant Bond Question: Is This Considered Wear and Tear or Should I Pay $400

Ldevilsden on 16/03/2018 - 14:17

Hi all,

I recently vacated a property (1BR Unit- Kitchen + Lounge attached and a bedroom) and would like to know if the marks in attached pictures considered wear and tear.

I have lived at the property for 4yrs and 10 months

https://i.imgur.com/emzVCp7.jpg - Lounge
https://i.imgur.com/vzoIgYI.jpg - Lounge
https://i.imgur.com/PMbB5bG.jpg - Lounge

I advised the landlord to deduct $330 for cleaning and have been advised that

  1. Marks in the lounge area could not be cleaned - pictures above (Kitchen + Lounge attached and a bedroom)
  2. I had around 20 stars (glow at night) about 1cm wide on the ceiling. Landlord advised while removing the stars the paint came off. The stars hardly had any glue and around 8 fell off over the period.

The landlord has asked for $400 to paint the whole home

All I want to know is if this reasonable amount or should I go to fair trading.

Home & Garden

Comments

  • spackbace on 16/03/2018 - 14:22
    +16

    Next time, make sure you have a tin of matching paint and just go over it yourself ;) Patch job = they won't care, marked walls = they will.

  • [Deactivated] on 16/03/2018 - 14:23
    +19

    those marks look like carelessness on your part, not wear and tear

    • stirlo on 16/03/2018 - 14:43

      If the paint has been fully depreciated (likely if you've been there 5 years) it doesn't matter if its damaged anyway as the landlord hasn't suffered a loss (paint has no value). So you legally don't need to pay

      • timthetoolman on 16/03/2018 - 17:49
        +2

        Paint has no value??

        • stirlo on 16/03/2018 - 18:49
          -1

          If fully depreciated, then yes.

        • kipps on 17/03/2018 - 22:52

          @stirlo: taxation depreciation has nothing to do with whether something is fair wear and tear. If you damage something then you can’t avoid paying to fix it just because it might be old enough to be fully depreciated. The cost to fix the damage will be recoverable.

        • stirlo on 17/03/2018 - 23:06

          @kipps:
          No it is not recoverable. The damaged asset is considered to have no value so there has been no loss so there is nothing lost to recover.

        • kipps on 17/03/2018 - 23:09

          @stirlo: stop giving legal advice. You’re wrong and your method of calculating damage for breach of contract is misconceived at law. Your sole source for this misconception seems to be some advice from some tenant advocacy mob. Ie. no legal qualifications.

        • stirlo on 17/03/2018 - 23:13

          @kipps:
          https://welcomehomerentals.com.au/damage-to-carpets-and-why-…

          Depreciated assets have no value and cannot be be recovered. You are wrong

      • [Deactivated] on 17/03/2018 - 16:59

        how long would you usually depreciate paint work.

  • salmon123 on 16/03/2018 - 14:33
    +2

    The landlord has asked for $400 to paint the whole home

    I doubt that's covering the cost of painting the whole home, but it might still be excessive.

    Say the cost of repainting the whole house is $2000 and the life span is 10 years, I would says you're only responsible for 10-20% of some portion of the reduced life span. Ask the landlord for:

    1) The repainting quote
    2) Evidence of when it was last painted

    Negotiate it down to $200 and then reneg on the negotiation and take it to ncat. I'm guessing once they'll decide $200 isn't worth their time.

  • pantsparty on 16/03/2018 - 14:35
    +4

    To be honest no, it does not look like wear and tear.

    $400 to repaint an entire apartment sounds pretty cheap to me - I would just wear the cost and move on.

  • stirlo on 16/03/2018 - 14:42
    -6

    I disagree with all of the above, those are minor marks, the paint would likely have been fully depreciated in the time your lived there, therefore it has no economic value = no loss to landlord. Unless they have suffered a loss you have no obligation to pay. Explain that as they have suffered no loss you will not be paying. If they really want to take it further you should win anyway.

    • QW3RTY on 16/03/2018 - 14:45
      +3

      therefore it has no economic value = no loss to landlord.

      It would certainly matter to an incoming tenant being asked to pay market rent.
      Landlord would be obligated to expend money to repair or risk not being able to secure market rent for the property.

      Whichever way you view it, it's a landlord loss.

      • stirlo on 16/03/2018 - 14:52

        In the eyes of the law though the paint has $0 value if depreciated so there has been no loss for them to claim from your damage. As it's been fully depreciated its expected that the owner will repaint so costs aren't relevant.

        Loss of rental income is your only concern, luckily when I had a situation like the OPs the property was re-rented straight away so they couldn't claim anything but evn then it would be a longshot to try to argue at court/tribunal that a few marks on the walls stopped the property being rented.

        • QW3RTY on 16/03/2018 - 15:03
          +2

          the paint has $0 value if depreciated

          ?

          The apartment's value as a whole is the sum of its improvements.
          If the improvements are impeccable, the apartments value is at the higher end of its comparable range.

          If the improvements are in poor condition, an adjustment needs to be made, detracting from value.

          If the improvements have been damaged, the tenant has indirectly adversely affected the value of the apartment. That's why ever lease ever has a clause stipulating that any damage caused by the occupation of the tenant is to be remedied prior to vacation. In order to clearly define the expected condition (and in order to be market your apartment to renters in a commercially competitive way), there is a great incentive for landlords to lease their properties in the best condition possible.

          tl;dr

          Depreciation is not an argument when damage to an investment asset has been caused during a lease period.

        • stirlo on 16/03/2018 - 15:09

          @QW3RTY:
          Not sure where you pulled this from, but over a 5 year period having a a few marks appear on paint that has no value is not a loss.
          Would obviously be different if you trashed the place but depreciation charges allow for the expectation that after 5 years paint will not be flawless.

        • QW3RTY on 16/03/2018 - 15:13
          +5

          @stirlo:

          Tenant has advised that he left star-stickers on the wall upon vacating.
          Landlord had to remove the stars as a result in order to get ready for next tenant. Landlord advised tenant that the wall was damaged as a result.

          I don't know how you can argue that this has anything to do with depreciation.

          Action of tenant has directly caused damage to the landlords property. Tenant has also breached the lease by not making good and removing the stars.

        • stirlo on 16/03/2018 - 15:16
          -1

          @QW3RTY:

          The landlord can probably bill for the cost (labour + cleaning product) of removing the stars, but they cannot claim anything for the damage to paint if it's been fully depreciated. That's how depreciation works, the value gets written down to ZERO over the depreciation period, this gives the landlord a great tax deduction but also comes with the acceptance that IT HAS NO VALUE, hence they cannot claim on it.

        • QW3RTY on 16/03/2018 - 15:31
          +1

          @stirlo:

          he landlord can probably bill for the cost (labour + cleaning product)

          If the landlord can bill for this expense (caused by the action/use of the tenant), why then can't he bill for damage caused on the paint? It's all financial loss.

          Out of curiosity, why are you so concerned with depreciation? It doesn't really have a bearing on the relationship between a landlord and a tenant. If depreciation mattered in property letting, isn't there an argument for rent decreasing over the lease term?

          I have dealt with leases of a number of different property classes and I have never come across provisions being made for depreciation which could negatively affect the landlord. After all, it's normally the landlord and their solicitors who stipulate the terms of the lease and offer them to the tenant.

          What actually matters is what the landlord and tenant agreed on the lease. The landlord made the property available to the tenant contingent on certain conditions — to which the tenant agreed. The tenant has now breached one of these conditions and should make remedy.

          But as you seem to ignore this logic, I would be very receptive to an example of a lease (or a ruling) where a Landlord's claim to damage caused by the use of a tenant has been negated by depreciation.

        • stirlo on 16/03/2018 - 17:11
          +1

          @QW3RTY:

          It's all financial loss.

          Not its not, the paint has no value after being depreciated, therefor no loss,

          an argument for rent decreasing over the lease term

          When you sign a lease inflation does make what you pay in the future less than what you pay at the start. Plenty of older apartments rent for less than newer ones. Of course rents go up with demand but that mostly due to population growth not due to the quality of the fixtures.

          I have dealt with leases of a number of different property classes and I have never come across provisions being made for depreciation which could negatively affect the landlord. After all, it's normally the landlord and their solicitors who stipulate the terms of the lease and offer them to the tenant.

          Whether depreciation is mentioned in the lease or not to claim damage the landlord must prove a loss, they cannot have lost if the economic value of what they lost was $0.

          The tenant has now breached one of these conditions and should make remedy.

          The remedy is $0 because nothing of value was lost

          I would be very receptive to an example of a lease (or a ruling) where a Landlord's claim to damage caused by the use of a tenant has been negated by depreciation.

          Literally the first google result example is carpet not paint but principal is the same. https://welcomehomerentals.com.au/damage-to-carpets-and-why-…

          Key Quote: Carpet that exceeds 10 years in age no longer has any depreciation left and therefore a claim may not legally be awarded.

      • terrys on 17/03/2018 - 09:36
        +3

        "Landlord would be obligated to expend money to repair"
        They would also be expected to pay for normal maintenance out of the income they receive. The official re-painting time in Trust owned homes in SOuth AUstralia was every 7 years. The tenant had been there for almost 5. Were the apartment to have been totally re-painted just before the tenant moved in, the Landlord's would have a reasonable claim, otherwise, they are trying it on.

    • stirlo on 16/03/2018 - 14:57
      +4

      To the down-voters, this is the exact advice I got from the TUV (Tenants Union of Victoria) when I contacted them about a similar situation. OP should definitely get advice and not just pay $400.

      Lol, so this post gets downvoted…

      • lgacb08 on 18/03/2018 - 19:25

        Yeah, just wait until these wannabe landlord go up to vcat or fair trading to see how they get treated against dodgy tenants. Apparently these downvoters never see the real world of rentals and think that rental property is rosy wait to get passive income.

      • lainey13 on 21/03/2018 - 22:57
        +1

        Yep. I'd like to see an immaculate house after several years of the OWNER living in it. Fair wear and tear is a thing.

  • QW3RTY on 16/03/2018 - 14:43
    +2

    As others have said, definitely looks like damage, not wear and tear.
    Marks do not appear on surfaces over time without some level of negligence.

    I had around 20 stars (glow at night) about 1cm wide on the ceiling. Landlord advised while removing the stars the paint came off. The stars hardly had any glue and around 8 fell off over the period.

    Why did you not remove these yourself prior to vacating?
    Seems like you left yourself open to further claim.

    $400 is very reasonable to remedy a place you've lived in for almost 5 years. Pay it and move on.

    • stirlo on 16/03/2018 - 14:53
      +3

      Alternatively, why pay $400 more when you've been a good tenant for nearly 5 years, landlord can certainly afford to fix small marks on wall (which is tax deductible anyway)

      • QW3RTY on 16/03/2018 - 15:06
        +3

        Because the tenant has agreed to keep the property in good condition.
        The tenant has caused damaged to property and needs to reimburse the landlord for the cost to make good.

        Remedying paint damage to a wall requires the repainting of that wall, otherwise you'll just have weird looking fresh paint patches on old walls.

      • Seraphin7 on 16/03/2018 - 15:32
        +4

        Whether or not the landlord "can afford to pay" is firstly, irrelevant and secondly, not necessarily true.

        This image of landlords being some fat cat in the manor on the top of the hill is completely unrealistic. Most landlords are of pretty typical wealth levels, not rolling in it who can just overlook potential neglect of their investment.

        Ultimately this is an issue of "damage" vs. "wear and tear". If the former, which I think it probably is in this case, the tenant is liable. If the latter, the landlord needs to wear it. The respective financial positions of the two parties are not factors in this decision.

        • stirlo on 16/03/2018 - 17:01
          +1

          It's not about fat cats or being able to afford to pay. It's that the government gives landlords a depreciation tax break to cover exactly this kind of wear and tear.

  • garetz on 16/03/2018 - 14:52
    +1

    I wouldn't pay it if i was in your shoes, as it seems unreasonable, however it definitely is not wear and tear, its damage caused by you. Advise them you will organise the repair yourself, as is your right, and get your full bond back.

  • o53djz7qTPY4der on 16/03/2018 - 15:09
    +3

    $330 cleaning for a 1-bedroom? I just paid $300 for a 3-bedroom house in Vic. My window seals look a lot cleaner than yours do.

    I'd be asking for the receipt for the cleaning and following up to check they've actually paid someone to do it.

  • devilsden on 16/03/2018 - 15:25

    Thank you everyone for the advise. Will speak to the landlord and see how it goes.

    Thank you very much. really appreciate it.

  • picklewizard on 16/03/2018 - 16:19
    -1

    Yup, that's damage, but I bet they don't get it fixed.

  • stirlo on 16/03/2018 - 16:59
    +3

    I honestly can't believe how many people are calling this damage. It's clearly not. This is pretty normal when you live somewhere 5 years.

    Over 5 years there are now half a dozen marks on the walls of what looks like an older style apartment. That absolutely nothing in the scheme of things. Let alone the depreciation arguments I explained above.

    Has anyone that's posted in this thread ever rented before and paid for "damage" like this?

  • rambutann on 16/03/2018 - 19:08
    +2

    Given how long you have been there I doubt they will try and take you to court/tribunal if you refuse to give up your bond.

  • lainey13 on 16/03/2018 - 21:50
    +1

    They will have to fight it. Let them take it to VCAT/state equivalent and let them decide.

  • ms_caz on 16/03/2018 - 21:54
    +5

    How could you possibly consider moving out of a property and leaving it in a state like this?

    Marks like those in the first pic do come off - sugar soap and/or a magic eraser will get that wall looking a lot cleaner than it is now (not to mention the grotty floor, skirting boards and window ledge).

    Granted it may not remove all of the mark but it will certainly look much more presentable.

    How do I know? I've been a renter myself and cleaned the property before moving out. I've been the landlord who has been left with the responsibility of cleaning up a property that has been left in a dirty state when long term tenants have moved out. It doesn't always need painting, but in the first pic at least, a decent clean could go a long way to resolving the matter!

    • try2bhelpful on 17/03/2018 - 06:36
      +2

      I agree with your comments, we always got our bond back when renting by cleaning properly before we left. Leaving the stars was a rooky mistake as the OP could argue wear and tear for the marks but the stars certainly aren’t, it only highlights other issues because the landlord needs to get the ceiling done he will get the rest done at the same time. I would try to negotiate a better price and then pay for reparations for the ceiling.

  • TheBilly on 17/03/2018 - 07:35
    +1

    Not worth fighting. The costs are marginal in comparison to the "actual repair" costs. I would like his painters number now.

  • magic8ballgag on 17/03/2018 - 08:25
    +1

    Bit annoyed at some of the replies in this thread, but not totally surprised as there are obviously adults out there that barely take responsibility for their actions.

    The apartment has very clearly not been taken care of, and as a result it requires repairs, $400 is extremely reasonable and you're lucky they aren't keeping your entire bond.

  • CactusReloaded on 17/03/2018 - 09:53
    +1

    I had to argue the point with my landlord last year after moving out and he tried to charge me excessive amounts to repair damage that was done by the previous tenants that wasn't repaired before I moved in. He barely ever responded to requests to repair anything in that old house and always did bandaid jobs himself (I ended up fixing most things myself). I even had the carpets all professionally cleaned before leaving but couldn't get the paint stains out that were caused by the LANDLORD who didn't use drop sheets right before I moved in. He tried to charge me for another carpet clean because I didn't get HIS paint stains out! Lol.

  • Sensiekatie on 17/03/2018 - 10:11
    +1

    It won’t cost $400 to do a whole apartment. If at all, only pay for areas damaged - not all.

    We had those stars in this house when we got here and we paimted over them without issue.

    If they were removed by someone else and actually caused the damage, it was needless damage.

    many landlords would repaint after that length tenancy anyway.

    We had one try to take our bond for a leak in pipes behind the wall. We won.

  • 1mmy1mmy on 18/03/2018 - 20:46
    +1

    The first thing to do is call the Tenant's Union in your state. They will give you sound advice.

    Next, have you signed the bond form? Make sure you don't sign the bond form without them filling out how much they will return (apparently some dodgy agents/landlords get people to sign the blank form and then claim the bond without permission).

    I would, personally, not agree for the bond to be claimed - not the $330 and definitely not the $400!

    This may seem like a strange question… but you did clean the property before you left, right? But it wasn't to standard? They should let you back in to address any issues. I would just get back in there and do a proper job of vacating the property. You may, possibly, have upset them by showing disrespect to their property. Having said that, they are taking you to the cleaner.

    Know your rights and ensure that respectfully communicate your knowledge of your rights and responsibilities as a tenant.

  • mgh4me on 19/03/2018 - 21:53

    If landlord has not already done so put in your own application to have your bond money returned the onus is than on the Landlord to persue you through the tenency tribunal rather than you persuing them to keep your bond money. This is in NSW not sure where your from.

    • DemocracyManifest on 14/05/2021 - 16:38

      Yeah, The landlord/agent then has 14 days to apply for a hearing with the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) to contest the claim. If they don't do so within the 14 days, the refund amount you claimed will be paid to you.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join