Hi
I have ended my contract with a landlord on the 30th of June 2016. The estate agent performed an inspection without requesting my presence.
Days went past and no problems with the property were made known to me. This was logical to me as I had not damaged the property in any way.
Yesterday, 15th July, I reminded the estate agent mediating me and my landlord's dealings that they must please remember to send through my deposit. Upon me reminding her, She told me that they intend to deduct R300 for damage to a wall due to prestik removal. In my first call with the estate agent, which I have recorded, she agreed that indeed the prestik which was used to hold the spare key in the kitchen was always there on the wall - from the beginning of my tenancy. What happened is that the current tenant removed the prestik off the wall and it came off with the paint. This was after the final inspection. This is clearly the current tenant's fault and not mine.
The landlord however insists that when she occupied the property before me, the prestik was on a plastic stove electrical socket and not directly on the wall. This is not true. Regardless, it is the prestik removal that damaged the wall, as there are safe ways to remove prestik off a wall.
I accepted a R350 cleaning charge they applied. But I'm rejecting the additional R300 for the wall which I did not damage. They claim that Prestik weakens paint and that it is due to the 'weak paint' that the prestik damaged the wall. Our exchanges continued and I gave them valid legal points about that sequence of events.
Noticing that I may not be able to be charged for that, the landlord + estate agent pair got hostile. They now additionally claim that my fridge left burn marks on the wall. It now seems like a substitute charge to replace the failing prestik issue. I own a very modern fridge with no significant heat dissipation from its back. Its actually cool to the touch and never really heats up. It cant have left those marks. It also was not in direct contact with the wall and I have pictures to prove that.
Please do ask any questions to establish the context of anything i mentioned here.
Now in this mess, I have a few questions:
1. Which of their claims are valid given the timing (15 days after the contract was terminated) and me not being called in for inspection?
2. Is the new Rental Housing Amendment act applicable to this case?
2. What further steps do I need to take
I have ended my contract with a landlord on the 30th of June 2016. The estate agent performed an inspection without requesting my presence.
Days went past and no problems with the property were made known to me. This was logical to me as I had not damaged the property in any way.
Yesterday, 15th July, I reminded the estate agent mediating me and my landlord's dealings that they must please remember to send through my deposit. Upon me reminding her, She told me that they intend to deduct R300 for damage to a wall due to prestik removal. In my first call with the estate agent, which I have recorded, she agreed that indeed the prestik which was used to hold the spare key in the kitchen was always there on the wall - from the beginning of my tenancy. What happened is that the current tenant removed the prestik off the wall and it came off with the paint. This was after the final inspection. This is clearly the current tenant's fault and not mine.
The landlord however insists that when she occupied the property before me, the prestik was on a plastic stove electrical socket and not directly on the wall. This is not true. Regardless, it is the prestik removal that damaged the wall, as there are safe ways to remove prestik off a wall.
I accepted a R350 cleaning charge they applied. But I'm rejecting the additional R300 for the wall which I did not damage. They claim that Prestik weakens paint and that it is due to the 'weak paint' that the prestik damaged the wall. Our exchanges continued and I gave them valid legal points about that sequence of events.
Noticing that I may not be able to be charged for that, the landlord + estate agent pair got hostile. They now additionally claim that my fridge left burn marks on the wall. It now seems like a substitute charge to replace the failing prestik issue. I own a very modern fridge with no significant heat dissipation from its back. Its actually cool to the touch and never really heats up. It cant have left those marks. It also was not in direct contact with the wall and I have pictures to prove that.
Please do ask any questions to establish the context of anything i mentioned here.
Now in this mess, I have a few questions:
1. Which of their claims are valid given the timing (15 days after the contract was terminated) and me not being called in for inspection?
2. Is the new Rental Housing Amendment act applicable to this case?
2. What further steps do I need to take