Dear Dawid,
The above has been investigated by the Principal of Chas Everitt International Amazimtoti who has found the following:
The landlord initially approached Chas Everitt Amanzimtoti for assistance with letting an apartment on his property, then later approached us for assistance only in drawing up a lease agreement between himself and a tenant who had approached him privately, and in vetting the tenant. The landlord agreed to pay us a fee of R 2000 for these services and thereafter was happy to deal directly with the tenant, who was also well aware of this arrangement.
The tenant then paid his deposit, first month’s rent, inspection fee and admin fee into our trust account and we dispersed the deposit and the rental to the Landlord, retaining the inspection fee and an admin fee as per agreement. We also invoiced the landlord for our R 2000 fee plus VAT and this was paid. Our agent also completed the ingoing inspection, sent it to both parties, and advised the tenant to give his gripe-list directly to the landlord within 7 days.
This was supposed to be the sum total of our involvement in the deal until it was time to do a final inspection, but several issues arose which our agent went out of her way to try to mediate and resolve. We have over 200 pages of correspondence to prove this.
The first issue was that the tenant arrived 2 days before the start of the lease according to the landlord, which was the reason he struggled to get the keys as mentioned.
The second issue was the tenant complaint that the landlord, who shares the property, was using his electricity. However there is a separate meter to the flat and the landlord was also prepared to have an electrician verify the separate connection. The tenant declined this offer and also declined to inspect the landlord’s calculations and records of water consumption.
As time went on the tenant and landlord seemed to have resolved their differences but when the lease terminated the tensions flared up and our agent once again tried to assist. She completed the outgoing inspection with the tenant 3 days prior to him leaving and forwarded this to the landlord who then compiled his own list of things he felt were wrong with the property.
It was the landlord’s decision to charge the tenant for painting the entire house inside and out, cleaning the carpets and pool maintenance, despite indications to the contrary in the inspection report and the objections of our agent.
We did inform the landlord of the tenant’s rights with regard to the repayment of his deposit and our agent also urged the landlord to consult the ingoing and outgoing inspection reports and compare the photos of the property before and after the tenant’s occupancy. In addition she advised the tenant that this might become a legal dispute as there was nothing more that we could do and that we were not holding the deposit.
Our conclusion is that our agent went well beyond her duties in respect of this lease agreement and is an absolute credit to Chas Everitt International.
We would also like to note that this tenant is still our tenant although he now resides in another property.
Kindest Regards,
Customers For Life