I have been renting a unit for 2 years. Just recently moved out and as part of the END of lease inspection the agent has identified some water damage on the wall and is asking me to pay for the repairs. I live in NSW.
Here are a couple of images of the damage
Am I liable to pay for water damage?
Thanks for your help in advance.
Yeah I get this but it's the cheapest medium term solution and definitely cheaper than putting me in a motel or something and having the whole bathroom redone.
This dude grouts.
Epoxy grout is waterproof.
How could it be behind furniture? Its right in the doorway on the opposite side the door opens.
Just say you never noticed it. Then say they never noticed it at last inspection. And that is it is caused by something internally in the shower. The nerve to just try and make the renter pay is outrageous.
Only way a tenant could have caused that is from something done negligently on the other side of the wall… ie, overfilling bathtub etc
If not then not tenants responsibility.
Overfilling a bathtub should never result in damage. The excess water shoud simply flow down the overflow or drain.
Maybe if the taps were left on full for a long time so it flooded and was too much for the drain to handle
That would be a design flaw and not the fault of the tenant.
@Cheapskate Paul: If a tenant leaves taps of sink and bath full on with the plug in, you really think a floor drain is going to stop the flood getting out of the bathroom, and that's a design flaw?
@Cheapskate Paul: I haven't ever seen a bathroom floor built in the shape of a steep, tall funnel. I think you're expecting too much from a drain with only slight incline towards it. If you have a waterfall of water moving across a floor, a drain, no matter how big it is won't be able to capture all that water.
@Quantumcat: the floor waste is usually connected to a 50-100mm drain pipe. The pipe that supplies water comes through like a 12.7mm (1/2 inch) pressure pipe fitting or similar - so it can handle it.
The only caveats being if the floor is constructed properly that it actually drains to it or runs a different direction and it isn't blocked up by something.
ive never seen a house with an overflow drain in the middle of the bathroom. is that a thing in states other than victoria?
If you dont have a floor drain you should have bath and sink overflows.
@Cheapskate Paul: I've never lived in a house that didn't have an overflow in the middle of the bathroom? We got 2 in our latest renovation just in case.. along with 4 layers of waterproofing, water damage is absolutely awful, especially if you're in a termite prone area
@wozz: Same here. I have a strip drain in the shower as well as a drain in the middle of the floor. I also have a floor drain in the laundry.
Same here im in Victoria. I have never seen a house with an overflow drain in the middle of the bathroom
@Youi2018: It's the Plumbing Code of Australia and Australian Standards (AS3500 I think) - so if you've been in 'applicable' bathrooms they should be in Victoria - but only some bathrooms in some circumstances need them
"In a Class 2, 3 or Class 4 part of a building, where a bathroom or laundry is located above a sole occupancy unit or public space"
Despite this, it was/is very common in other jurisdictions - I know lots/most have them in Queensland for example
While the leak is not your fault, why on earth would you not tell them about that? It's very obvious, and you have been sucking in mold. Also can't see how they didn't pick that up at inspection time.
I agree, i think it's crazy that this wasn't mentioned.. but also think real estate agents absolutely suck for not noticing it either, they're the ones that are most at fault.. i think op should have notified, but would never consider them liable, that's why re agents are paid, they're supposed to actually do something
Owners cost, not yours.
That’s some pretty shoddy construction. Shower waterproofing has obviously failed.
If the REA wants you to pay after you say that it is not your responsibility as you did not know there was a leak then call the NSW department of trading and ask what you can do to ensure that you get all of your bind back.
Sorry, but looking at the pics, that's straight up negligence for not reporting it in a reasonable period of time..
Thanks for the negs.. never said it was the tenants fault, just that the pics provided show negligence and extreme damage, and that damage, lets say from a water seal fail, should have been reported a lot earlier. So initial damage is Landlords issue, but further damage from it not being called in, may be in some cases be considered tenant responsible..
I do not agree completely, just because he didn't reported it, he can't be responsible for repair. Where is REA's responsibility during inspection, Their only work was to check for damages during inspection, isn't he failed in his inspection?
A landlord can expect a percentage of the repair cost in some instances.
I.e. the damage would have been less if notified in due time, therefore cost to repair would have been less.
@Austaurean: Agreed.
But similarly the damage would have been less if identified by REA during inspection, therefore cost to repair would have been less 😊
Negged you first and then changed my mind.
See where you are coming from.
Sure OP is probably not legally liable for damage and sure REA/Landlord should have noticed damage during inspection. But it doesn't change what would be the decent thing to do. I agree the responsible/respectable thing to do regardless would have been to report things as soon as noticed. Reading the few posts by OP sounds like they did notice it but didn't think to report it. In that regard OP is negligent.
I think neggers are clowns like me who neg without thinking.
Also a lot of landlord haters here
Agree completely, unlikely the OP's fault but people are actually happy to live like this?
OP - Any health issues? pull the carpet back and check for mold.
Who would ever want to be a landlord…!
woah those pics are pretty bad.
How could you not have noticed? or is the damaged skirting board something else entirely?
I was ready to say tell the LL to F off, failed waterproofing is not your fault. However, given how bad those pics are, you need to be partly responsible.
Initial flooding and fixing the waterproofing is still not your fault, and not your liability. But if there's been extra damage as a result of your failure to report, yes you need to take accountability.
Seems like a good case for the Tribunal
Couldn't agree more, if I was the owner i would be so frustrated the damage is worse then it needed to be. Earlier notification could have been far simpler to rectify.
I think the responsibility is partially the tenant and the real-estate. Both should have found this long ago.
OP, report the agent for attempted fraud.
Lodge your bond return application immediately - you do not have to wait for the agent's signature or agreement.
Then the onus is on the agent to prove that you owe them money from the bond. If they persist in trying to claim the money, they will have to lodge with NCAT if you have already claimed the bond back.
In this case, given that there have been regular inspections, there is no way the tribunal will side with them and you will get your bond back.
Gross
Wow, how did the agent find that damage? Hardly noticeable at all. Ha!
I was thinking the same thing about the tenant!
I would say they already know about the leak and it's been repaired in the past, there's an obvious join in the middle of that skirting no tradesman would install just half a piece of skirting. But a handyman repairing a water damaged skirting would just cut out the damaged section and replace it.
wow, you sure have a keen eye. Do you work in a similar field as nobody has picked up this detail yet.
I do work in this field, and repair similar damage all the time. It only looks bad because they used MDF skirting.
Damn man, that's some sherlock level observational skills. Well picked up.
Surely YOU would have seen this!
When did you first notice the damage?
When was the property last inspected? They are required to regularly conduct an inspection - even 5x per year.
Why didn't you report this?
Where do you think the water is coming from - inside the walls, or elsewhere ?
It is a property maintenance issue, nothing to do with you.
DO NOT pay any money… if they begin to fight you, take it to Tribunal. Then they would be asked about "inspections" roof/ water pipe conditions, etc.
How much does landlord want you to pay?
Have they said exactly what you are paying for? (i.e. repaint, the wood edge).
Can you post some pictures of the other side of the wall. Is there grout missing between the tiles?
Water damage also likely under the carpet, I probably would've reported sooner but you shouldn't have to wear the cost to repair.
unless you directly caused the damage you shouldn't have to pay for it, i don't see how the landlord/agent can prove that the damage were caused by your actions or wilful negligence. you are looking at a tribunal hearing if they try to contest the bond.
this is what landlord / building insurance is for, bit rich for them to try to make you pay for maintenance/repair
Contributory damage comes to mind
If that was my house, I would be so pissed to only find out about it now and not when it first started.
Strange place to have furniture in the doorway.
The owner knew there was a problem with water previously as the wall had already been partially removed prior to this tenant coming in… The issue came back.
So essentially Landlord was under the impression that it was fully and completely repaired and watertight. Only to find out 2 years later that was not the case.
How can you not seen this? It’s so obvious that I am amazed that you and the REA didn’t notice it until now.
Check if the carpet is water damaged. If the carpet is not water damaged then the water must have came from above the wall or from the other side of the wall. If the paint on the wall is not damaged on the top section that means the water must have came from the other side of the wall which is the shower.
I bought a house recently and found out that both bathrooms had not been waterproofed correctly by a DIYer. It was not picked up by building inspection, resulting in a full gut and expensive rebuild just 6 months into ownership. This doesn't look like your fault, by the time the water is this far into the gyprock and skirting board it has soaked all internal walls and subfloor and mold/rott has taken hold. This is why waterproofing needs to be done by a professional and they are liable for six years, as our Reno was done longer than six years ago we could not prove who was at fault. I checked out the new water proofing on our bathrooms, and it was literally a boat. Fibreglass and heavy epoxy- it also has a 25yr warranty. You could fill the whole room up with water and it wouldn't leak.
Stand strong with the owner and realestate. The damage here looks to be from internal sources, not external factors, and has developed over a long time. As for reporting it early- it would not have helped. The damage was already done internally before anyone would notice it.
Some plumbers offer a dye test to find leaks. We has this done and this is what showed the water proofing was inadequate. Probably cost more than your bond unfortunately. :(
Your pre-purchase building inspector was a dud. A good one would have flooded the shower and used a moisture meter to check for waterproofing issues.
Likewise plenty of waterproofing 'professionals' are also duds that don't know what they are doing. I've had two houses built and both had waterproofing issues that would have not been rectified if I hadn't insisted on checking it before tiles went down.
Yep, well aware of this.
It's not obvious damage. If the regular inspections didn't pick it up, its clearly not so obvious that tenant should have seen it.
You are undone however, if you said "it's been like that for ages".
That admits that you knew it about and didn't report it.
That doesn't mean you'll have to pay to repair the whole lot, because you aren't the cause of the damage… you just didn't report it when you should have.
The question is, how long has it been? "for ages" means nothing.
Get 3 written quotes of your own, and compare to what the agent is asking for from your security bond.
If it's about half, then that sounds fair to me.
"for ages" means prior to him moving in as it has been repaired previously, unsuccessfully, and it came back.
That's different. If it's existing, then hopefully its in the condition report.
But not everyone goes through their condition reports in great detail. Agents ALWAYS miss stuff, and many times they've tried to get stuff repaired on my coin.
A detailed condition report is worth thousands.
dont think yours to pay- im renting and have a similar problem- then found that the water leaks from the toilet to the carpet and walls. Tell teh agent they're joking if they ask for you to pay it.
-i'm a landlord and i would pay for it if that happened to my IP.
Have you reported yours?
Pretty bad damage,
Borderline IMO
Interesting case. I'd like to see the result. If tenant ends up being to blame, the REA should also be for not seeing during routine inspections.
I'd be firing my real estate agent. How could they not pick that up during 6 monthly inspections. It's pretty signficant damage. I'd be pissed at the tenants for not flagging it as well.
Why didn't you raise it as a maintenance issue during your tenancy OP?
Jeez seems to be around for a while judging by the looks of it. Is that timber or mdf skirting as it gets damaged differently. Probably couple of grand to fix the whole thing.
Although there is no doubt that this could have been sorted out as a maintenance issue due to leaking shower, the OP now has some accountability from not reporting the issue. Ignorance is not defensible.
Another argument would be if the dishwasher leaks during usage. If a tenant does not report this matter and the continual usage causes significant damage…
tenants are only responsible for consequential damage after failure to report
but if you had a bed there and didn't notice it I don't think you should be held responsible
agent should have picked this up from earlier inspection - and sounds like they are trying to cover their a$$
I'd lodge the claim for full bond refund - and tell the agent you will go to tribunal if they choose to argue this point
basically - a leaky shower is landlord/agent's failure to maintain - and I think the tribunal should find that so.
Poor form from the OP who failed to notify the agent of this. I would be pretty pissed if I was the owner and would surely take it to the tribunal.
Periodic inspection - agent can simply deny that this was visible at the last inspection so it will be up to the tenant to prove that this had occurred prior to the last inspection but then the fault of tenant is that if he knew about it, why didn't he notify?
Treat the rental property as it's your own and you will never have this issue!
Definitely not at fault.
As a landlord I would be asking my REA wtf they are doing, but can't imagine the tenant would ever end up paying.
REA are good at procrastinating and not fixing the problems. Even if you mention it many times on emails,etc. They will find a away blame you for something that is not your fault, because REA did a bad job.
Both at fault I would say.
LL to fix waterproofing, and tenant to contribute to fix the skirting and plaster board.
Tribunal will ALWAYS go to photos and condition report.
Regardless of when you or the owner claim the damage occurred, that's very obvious damage.
If its not noted in the entry condition report or photos, your goose is cooked.
You won't be liable but you are indeed a grub for not reporting the issue when first noticed.
A bit unrelated but if you haven't got your bond back yet and you are expecting the LL to try and steal your bond I advise you to not pay the repair bill straight away and let the LL try and take it out of your bond. That way even if they try to take all your bond, you can just pay for the repair bill once you find out how much bond you are getting back and contest the amount left over which they will hopefully let go as they did with me when they realise it's not worth the time and effort pursuing such a small sum.
If there are no before pictures then how can anyone claim that the damage wasn’t already there?
You mentioned above it had been like this for ages, so it sounds like you were well aware of the problem. If you said this to them and implied you did know about the issue and failed to mention it then you are stuffed; despite the agents not picking up on it.
Refer to 17.3 in your Tenancy Agreement.
"The tenant agrees: to notify the landlord as soon as practicable of any damage to the residential premises"
https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/00…
Since it was unlikely you caused the problem, but likely contributed to prolonged damage you should be able to negotiate to only pay for the parts that were worse of for not notifying them sooner - eg the plaster, skirting etc. Despite not notifying them earlier, you shouldn't be liable for any plumbing issues IMO since they would have happened regardless.
If you played dumb and said you didn't notice it, and the agent had inspected the property recently, you may be able to get away with it, but others would have a better experience with taking something like this to a tribunal.
Yes, the real estate obviously sucks and didn't do their job, but a simple email would save you all the stress of the situation. A good lesson on the ramifications of being lazy. If the real estate had picked up on this earlier it would be pretty clear cut against you, and you'd be unlikely to have your lease extended. It's always better to report things as you see them, It gives you a paper record against any claims against you in the future.
Surely they should've picked this up during periodic inspection?
I own a plumbing company and we have 100's of rental properties we look after, We see this type of damage all the time, the extent of this damage, would have occurred over some months and not just 2/3. This should have been picked up on inspection and also advised by the tenant.
In many instances of very minor leaks, once the damages become visible, the inside of the wall is most likely extensively water damaged.
At the end of the day the tenant is not responsible for the cost of the repair. To rectify the issue had the tenant advised the real estate sooner, in most cases everything in the photo would have been damaged to complete the repairs.
Grout is not waterproof. Waterproofing is water proof. That's why the process is framing, sheeting, waterproofing, tiles and grout.
The grout is generally porous but will generally dry out quick between shower uses.
Repairing the grout will definitely help but is just a band-aid solution.
In ops case - not your problem.