Tenant feels unfairly treated as landlord docks her deposit

Can a tenant be held liable for property damages identified during an inspection conducted in their absence? This is a question at the centre of a dispute between a tenant and Lutho Properties which was managing an apartment at Milpark Mews near Auckland Park.

Mmotso Mphatswe, whose daughter was renting the apartment, claims that landlord Nompumelelo Mlangeni and Lulutho Properties, the agents, were unfair in docking her R4,500 deposit for damages last year when her daughter moved out.

According to the lease agreement, which Sowetan Consumer has seen, the landlord and the tenant are supposed to inspect the property together within five days of the lease expiring.

It further states that should the landlord fail to inspect the property with the tenant, “the landlord will be regarded to have acknowledged that the premises are in a good and proper state and will have no claim against the tenant.”

These two clauses form the bone of contention between Mphatswe and the landlord, together with Lulutho Properties. 

Mphatswe claims she informed Mlangeni and the agent on time that her daughter, who was finishing her studies, would no longer need the apartment for 2025 and thus the lease would cease on December 31 last year.

“My daughter vacated the room on December 15 and came home for the holidays. The landlord was informed on December 24 that she was not coming back. She left behind her bed with the intention of getting it back later that month, once the inspection had been carried out.

“However, the landlord went there and did the inspection alone. Then, when I inquired about my deposit in January, I was told that they found damages in her room and would give me R2,650 instead of the full deposit,” said Mphatswe.

Zimasa Silevu from Lulutho Properties said they could not inspect the property as Mphatswe's daughter had been hospitalised and they only managed to do so on January 6 this year, where they picked up several damages.

These included a loose kitchen tap, a missing key for the balcony sliding door, a broken bathroom door and shower, leaking walls inside the bathroom and broken kitchen door handles, among others. The bill totalled R2,150 and included R500 for payment arrangements that Mphatswe entered into with the landlord for arrears. 

Silevu said they were within their right to inspect the property within seven days after the lease had expired on December 31 if the tenant failed to respond to their request to attend the inspection. 

“Once again, the repairs were done while Ms Mphatswe’s daughter was still staying at the apartment, not after she vacated the premises. Hence, I requested Ms Mphatswe to confirm with her daughter before accusing the company of being a ‘crook’,” said Silevu.

Mphatswe denied she received any request in January to attend the inspections. 

She added she received more hostility when she asked for damages to be deducted from interest her deposit would have earned while in the interest-bearing account of the landlord.

By law, landlords are legally obligated to place rental deposits in interest-bearing accounts, with the interest accruing to the tenant, and must provide proof of interest on request.

Mphatswe admits she was aware of the damages to the door, which she claimed the agent said would be fixed at no cost to her.

“The door issue happened when my daughter was supposed to come home for holidays and she left the keys with the agent. When she went back, the agent was out of town, but she said my daughter could ask security to change the lock to her room and give her new keys.

“The agent said she would pay the costs and I was surprised when these costs were later dumped on me,” said Mphatswe. 

She said she would take her matter up with the Gauteng Rental Housing Tribunal for mediation. 

SowetanLIVE