Landlord told most damage not covered in claim dispute
Suncorp has been found liable for cracked windows, wall holes and missing door knobs, but within its rights to decline cover for a long list of other property damage during a claim dispute with a landlord.
The policyholder had claimed his tenant bore ill will towards him because he had commenced proceedings to evict her for vandalising the property. He suggested there was damage caused by punching, kicking, or stabbing with a sharp object, and reported the blinds to be soiled beyond repair and carpets stained far beyond normal wear and tear.
The magnitude and repetitive nature of the damage was indicative of the tenant’s malice, disrespect and improper motive, the landlord said.
The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) said the information about the condition of the property when the tenancy began, and the basis of her eviction, was inconsistent.
He told Suncorp she was “livid and angrily fought us at VCAT to stay in the house”. However, VCAT documents showed the landlord wanted to terminate her tenancy because he wanted to occupy the property.
A VCAT order relating to her tenancy in 2019 made no orders for compensation on the basis she had damaged the property and there were no suggestions he wanted to terminate because the tenant was damaging the property or breaching any tenancy terms.
She continued paying rent throughout the period, according to a tenant history ledger.
“There seems to be no specific material suggesting she was being particularly hostile towards the complainant or his property agents,” AFCA said. “On balance, these matters are not consistent with the complainant’s suggestions.”
AFCA ruled that only a cracked toilet door and the wall holes were covered under the policy’s “malicious acts by tenant” section
It ruled missing door knobs, light fittings and a shower tap were also covered -- under “theft by tenant” -- while cracked windows and a missing shower screen were covered under “accidental breakage of glass”.
“The parties are to work together to organise the repair quotes for these items. The insurer can elect to either repair or replace these items, or cash settle the same,” AFCA ruled.
Suncorp had declined the landlord’s claim on the basis most damage was not malicious. It did accept that the policy could respond to the property’s missing door knobs but said the repair cost was less than the excess.
Suncorp argued the majority of damage was due to carelessness or neglect, general wear and tear, accidental or unintended damage, or damage caused by a pet - all of which were exclusions under the policy.
AFCA agreed Suncorp was entitled to deny liability for holes in the carpets, damaged blinds, a non-functioning dishwasher, cracked bathroom tiles, material stuck inntentionally on a lounge window, a damaged manhole cover, widespread scuffs and marks, a missing fire alarm cover, damaged fly screen door, stains on the stairs, broken door knobs and two kitchen cabinet doors off their hinges.
A case analyst had previously made a recommendation partly in favour of the landlord which Suncorp accepted, but he had rejected.
AFCA said photos purporting to show the property was well maintained and in good condition when the tenancy began depicted different furniture than the real estate agent’s inspection report.
Evidence also showed a prior tenant left the property in a damaged and unclean state in 2016, with some unpaid rent, and the woman took possession while it was in this condition.
Her entry condition report noted missing blinds, signs of wear on the carpets, a broken kitchen cupboard, cuts on the kitchen benchtop, the dishwasher not working, a hole in the flyscreen and that most door handles on the property were not working properly.
The landlord’s property agent then undertook some repairs and cleaning, which appeared to have been completed after she was already in the property.
A VCAT order from 2016 relating to the prior tenancy indicated there had been compensation awards for repair and replacement of goods and fixtures and for cleaning at that time.
See the full ruling here.