Conducting Vague Inspection Reports and Taking Deposit Money from Tenants

<p>On leaving a rental apartment managed by Pieter Kotze Properties (agency) after 12 months, our deposit was deducted to the value of R2830 out of R5500 for painting and cleaning expenses. Cleaning amounted to R350 and the remainder R2480, allocated for painting was said to have covered "damages" in the form of 3- 4 small wall scratches. At the departure inspection we all noted verbally that these scratches were extremely small. On the inspection report however, it was recorded by the agent as merely “marks on wall”. We immediately recognized in the aftermath that the scratches we noted could not have warranted the cost that were charged for the paint work. When the agency was questioned as to how the painting of these small scratches no bigger than 5cm (which may have been washable) amounted to the value of R2480, we were told that the quote covered the painting of a few walls on a square meterage basis. In covering the “marks”, they had to paint the full walls. We believe that the agency used the vagueness of the inspection report to cover more paintwork than was required. They also contacted and proceeded with the work the very next day after the inspection, leaving no time or attempt to confirm with us, whether we had any plans to have the work done ourselves. They never reviewed a quotation with us. They also charged an additional R284 for past damages (no description given), which they later claimed was an interest expense and which was later reimbursed to us when we asked for it. If we never asked however, we would not have been reimbursed. Tenants must be aware of situations where their deposits are “******” from them in an attempt to keep the relationship sustainable between agent and property owner.</p>