Landlord’s claim to deposit. Painting.

The parties entered into a lease for a definite period. The lease stated that the tenant was to undertake to paint the apartment, but that the landlord would pay for the materials. Following the return of the property, the landlord made a written claim against the deposit before the required deadline. His claim was to cover the cost of work on painting of the ceiling of the apartment, which had not been painted by the tenant, and the purchase of a heat detector and electrical sockets and their installation. The landlord considered that the painting had been carried out in such a way as to cause damage to the rented apartment which he had to repair. The tenant rejected the claim regarding his work on the painting, but undertook to purchase the electrical sockets, which he said he would deliver to the landlord. The tenant did not regard himself as being responsible for the heat detector, as it had been out of order at the beginning of the lease period. When the tenant brought the sockets to the landlord, the landlord had refused to accept them.

The Complaints Committee did not consider there was any doubt that the heat detector had disappeared from the property during the lease period and hence that the tenant bore liability for that expense. As the parties had made an agreement that the tenant would provide the electrical sockets, yet the landlord had then refused to accept them, the committee considered the landlord had no grounds for deducting that cost from the deposit. The committee did not regard it as having been demonstrated that the tenant had caused damage to the property, and therefore considered there were no grounds for making a deduction from the deposit in respect of the painting work done by the tenant.

Conclusion: The landlord was within his rights in deducting from the deposit the cost of the electrical sockets; all his other claims were rejected.