IN THE MATTER of the Rental of Residential Property Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, Cap. 13.1
- and -
IN THE MATTER of an appeal, under Section 25 of the Rental of the Residential Property Act, by Reg and Jean MacDonald (the Lessees) of Parkdale, Prince Edward Island from a decision and order (No. 92-0037) of the Rental Property Officer under the authority of the Rental of Residential Property Act.APPEAL HEARD BEFORE:
Linda Webber, Chairman
John L. Blakney, Vice Chairman
James Nicholson, CommissionerDATE OF HEARING: April 24, 1992
DATE OF ORDER: May 27, 1992
Decision and Order
Participants
Reg and Jean MacDonald, AppellantsTodd Munn, Lessor
Decision
Background
The Lessees moved into the Lessor's premises in late August of 1991. The MacDonalds stated that at that time they refused to sign a lease and they thought the Lessor was angry with them because of their refusal. They moved out on February 1, 1992.
On February 10, 1992 the Lessor signed Form 8, Notice of Intention to Retain Security Deposit, indicating an intention to retain the security deposit of $200 plus interest in the amount of $7.50. The Lessees signed Form 9, Application re Determination of Security Deposit, on February 11, 1992.
After a hearing on this matter, the Rental Property Officer issued an order (No. 92-0037) dated March 24, 1992. The Order allowed $144.82 to be retained by the Lessor for damage to the premises and for items missing from the premises.
An appeal from this order was signed on April 3, 1992 and received by the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission on April 6, 1992.
EvidenceThe MacDonalds testified that the only cost that should be allowed the Lessor is the cost of cleaning the bedroom carpet. They admitted that it was dirty and needed cleaning.
As for the rest of the premises, they stated that the carpet in the kitchen and hallways was worn out and needed replacing when they arrived. Jean MacDonald said she bought a carpet runner to put over the hallway carpet, because it was so badly stained, and one for the kitchen as well.
Regarding Exhibit 11, a letter from Rose Campbell, the previous lessee, the MacDonalds said that Rose Campbell told them shortly after they moved in that she had tried but couldn't get all the stains out of the carpet.
They also stated that the sink stoppers and bath stopper were not supplied with the apartment (and so were not missing when they left); the missing light fixture was missing when they arrived; and they don't remember any hole in the bedroom door.
The Lessor reaffirmed his belief that because of actions of the Lessees he would have to clean the carpets, supply sink and bath stoppers, replace the bedroom door and the bedroom light lens.
The Lessor produced a Rental Unit Condition Report (Exhibit 12) in support of his position but it was dated September 25, 1990 and signed by the previous lessee, Rose Campbell.
Rose Campbell, still a lessee of the Lessor, but in other premises, also wrote a letter (Exhibit 11) to Mr. Boyde White, dated February 1992, and this was used by the Lessor to support his statement that everything was clean and without stains in September of 1991.
The inspection report of Boyde White indicates that the premises were in the process of being redecorated at the time of the inspection but he noticed that the kitchen carpet was "old and showed some considerable traffic wear" as well as being stained and dirty. Two bedroom doors had holes in them, one of which the Lessor indicated was there when the MacDonalds rented the unit.
Mr. White's report commented upon the stove and fridge being left unclean. The MacDonalds stated that when they were first shown the apartment it had a fridge, stove, washer and dryer and they had thought these were included in the rent. However, when they moved in they found these items gone and the Lessor charged $20 extra per month for a fridge and stove to be put in. Jean MacDonald said that the condition they were left in was no worse than the condition they were in when they arrived.
DecisionThe onus is on the Lessor to prove that damage beyond reasonable wear and tear was done to the premises during the occupancy of the Lessees. The Rental Unit Condition Report (Exhibit 12) is not of assistance to us because it was not done when the Lessees moved in. The letter of Rose Campbell, while of some value, is limited because of her continued relationship with the Lessor.
The Lessees impressed the Commission as being straightforward. In addition, a carpet as worn as described in Mr. White's report must be so old that one would expect a certain amount of staining.
The Lessor has failed to prove damage beyond what was admitted by the Lessees. While the Lessees apparently did not leave the apartment in spotless condition, we find that it is most likely that they left it in a condition similar to that in which they found it when they moved in, except for the bedroom carpet.
OrderThe Commission hereby orders that the appeal is allowed except for the cost of cleaning the bedroom carpet. At $.28 per square foot, the cleaning estimate, the total cost to the Lessees is $33.60. That amount will go to the Lessor. The balance, $173.90, will be forwarded to the Lessees.
DATED this 27th day of May, 1992.
Linda Webber, Chairman
John L. Blakney, Vice-Chairman
James Nicholson, Commissioner
