Hi I'm in NSW and am going to NCAT trying to recover Bond monies from a tenant for leaving a mess and damage to the property. Estimated cost of damage and extra cleaning totals $4200. I have sacked the property manager because their lack of action has contributed to this issue. Does anyone know where in the Residential Tenancies Act it states that the NCAT member is allowed to depreciate the cost of the goods that have been damaged. This practice appears to be rife at NCAT. I can't seem to find this anywhere. I rang Fair Trading and they told me to ring NCAT. So I did and they became very defensive and told me to ask the member. I suspect that this is a personal determination by members and its isn't documented anywhere. If someone knows can you please let me know where it it and how it is mean't to be applied.
NSW Member decisions at NCAT.
- Thread starter Anon245519
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ncat
Principles of natural justice will not allow one party to benefit at the expense of another.
Allowing someone to claim full replacement cost, for instance of a 20 year carpet, is not fair to the tenant. The 20 year carpet has 'no value', so allowing a landlord to claim full replacement value as a cost is not going to be supported by a court or tribunal, even if the 20 year old carpet is in excellent condition. If you could prove the carpet was in excellent condition, you may get something rather than nothing.
There is case law on this principle however I don't have anything as a reference on hand to point to.
Allowing someone to claim full replacement cost, for instance of a 20 year carpet, is not fair to the tenant. The 20 year carpet has 'no value', so allowing a landlord to claim full replacement value as a cost is not going to be supported by a court or tribunal, even if the 20 year old carpet is in excellent condition. If you could prove the carpet was in excellent condition, you may get something rather than nothing.
There is case law on this principle however I don't have anything as a reference on hand to point to.
The other consideration is whether the landlord has claimed depreciation on the carpet, over say a 10 year period. If they have depreciated its value to nothing, and have received the taxation benefit for doing so, that would support an argument that it has zero value in real terms and on paper.
Agreed.
Though I do think courts and tribunals sometimes mistake costs/value versus tax benefits. In the example we used, the carpet has no more tax benefits, but clearly has 'value' to the landlord.
Though I do think courts and tribunals sometimes mistake costs/value versus tax benefits. In the example we used, the carpet has no more tax benefits, but clearly has 'value' to the landlord.
Similar threads
