I have been renting a unit for 2 years. Just recently moved out and as part of the END of lease inspection the agent has identified some water damage on the wall and is asking me to pay for the repairs. I live in NSW.
Here are a couple of images of the damage
Am I liable to pay for water damage?
Thanks for your help in advance.
The other side of the wall is shower. Could have been water leaking form the shower.
If the shower is leaking, not your fault….
No. It's requirement of the tenancy to report items in need of repair. Given the pictures shared by OP this is not a casual amount of water or a once off occurrence. It's surprising the carpet as well hasn't been damage or mould, given there isn't it seems likely this wasn't covered by furniture and was in plain sight.
What are we arguing here - that they didn't see it, because I find that hard to believe. Or that they don't have a requirement to alert the owner to urgent repair work which if left untreated causes compounding damage. I would absolutely be asking WTF.
It's requirement of the tenancy to report items in need of repair
It's also a requirement of the agent to do inspection reports, and report items in need of repair too.
Given the pictures shared by OP this is not a casual amount of water or a once off occurrence
As above, so the agent should have picked this up during the 2 years the OP was there and reported it?
What are we arguing here - that they didn't see it, because I find that hard to believe. Or that they don't have a requirement to alert the owner to urgent repair work which if left untreated causes compounding damage. I would absolutely be asking WTF.
That is wasn't just the OP who was responsible for reporting this. Its also not the OP fault the shower is leaking. They didn't 'damage' the shower/place doing anything that wasn't normally expected of someone.
What are you arguing? The OP pays for a bathroom makeover and a replacement of the waterproofing as it failed on them by no fault of their own? As that is what is sounds like.
Let me guess, you own IP?
@JimmyF: What, bathroom renovation? Are you on drugs? They pay for the damage they neglected to mention or at least a portion adjusted for responsibility. It does appear to be only skirting board(s) and the owner makes good on the root cause.
I moved out of my own home and someone is renting it, not sure I'd call that investment but I have experience with the matter otherwise I probably wouldn't know the T&Cs and contents of a lease agreement so well. Not sure how that's relevant, this is clearly covered in the rental contract so it's not open to interpretation.
I'm renting right now and haven't had an inspection in the 2 years since covid started. Damage like that can occur in months, not sure why you think agent has anything to do with it, they facilitate the process, they do not take ownership nor become accountable for responsibilities of the tenant. I don't get your angle here at all. If the tenant stops paying rent or sets fire to the kitchen do you blame the property manager for that too?
What, bathroom renovation? Are you on drugs? They pay for the damage they neglected to mention or at least a portion adjusted for responsibility. It does appear to be only skirting board(s) and the owner makes good on the root cause.
Well you said they need to 'fix' the damage caused, so that would mean repairing the water leak as well so it doesn't happen again.
If you think the OP should just replace the skirting board, that board is like $5 from bunnings plus 2 nails or a tube of liquid nails. Honestly why bother if the owner has to gut the bathroom to fix the water proofing issue anyhow.
I moved out of my own home and someone is renting it, not sure I'd call that investment
Called it… Yes you are a landlord.
Damage like that can occur in months
What are we arguing here then? Maybe it just occurred and the OP only noticed :)
@JimmyF: If they can make good for $5 it's really beside the point, if they're liable they're liable, cost has nothing to do with it.
I don't get your fixation on if someone owns a house or not, and how it impacts their ability to answer the question?
if they're liable they're liable, cost has nothing to do with it.
Then they are not liable for damage caused be a leaking shower caused from everyday use.
I don't get your fixation on if someone owns a house or not, and how it impacts their ability to answer the question?
Landlords think the renter should fix everything as you have shown. When in this case it was a landlord who didn't bother to inspect and look after their property that lead to the damage.
it's in the standard contract agreement.
hahahaha show me a contract that says they need to repair damage from a leaking shower?
Next you'll tell me they need repair cracks in the wall from the house moving!
@JimmyF: They aren't liable for damage from a leaking shower, but they need to notify the landlord and take reasonable steps to minimise this damage.
They did not notify the landlord and instead left this leaking to continue for a long time - which has destroyed the whole wall by the look of it.
So they are liable for that.
@trapper: A renter has no obligation to know what water damage looks like, and what the consequences of it are.
Regular inspections are required to avoid serious damage like this and are fully the responsibility of the agent and/or landlord.
As an example, the agent which manages the tenancy I live in checks every pipe, wall and skirting board for water damage every 3 months.
@Assburg: Not only could damage like this appear under 3 months, but also you're telling me there's been no site access issues due to covid? Pull the other one.
Have you seen the photos? You don't need to be a building inspector to know if side boards are swelling so much the paint is cracked things are not normal. You're being completely and utterly ridiculous. Go check the photos and say the same thing with a straight face.
https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/housing/renting/repairs-alte…
Under 'renting law reforms':
"Renters must report damage and faults to their rental provider as soon as possible."
It is completely reasonable anyone with no speciality knowledge could plainly see something is a problem.
@Assburg: OP didn't mention any of those extenuating circumstances, looking at the picture it's right in a door way.. And not behind the door either. Let's just stick to the facts on this one. This was not obscured from sight at all, it's amazing the house didn't smell of mould really going off the pictures. The boards are warped and sticking out non trivial amount - talking CM not MM.
I don't think it's about time to inspect, landlords arnt allowed to inspect more often than every 4 weeks I believe not that either party would want to. I rent now, if I see something, I say something. This wasn't some nuanced special thing only builders would know - sticking with explaining things within the context of this situation and photos.
@peterpaoliello: On what basis do you conclude that the tenant was required to report visible damage if they aren't required to conduct inspections?
You have made an illogical leap from requirement to report damage to requirement to inspect. If you knowingly damage a property either deliberately or through negligence, that would be reportable, but naturally occurring damage like that is for the landlord to keep on top of.
@Assburg: I don't get where you're coming from at all, official "inspections" are conducted by proprietors of the dwelling only, the observation of issues or the resulting damage isn't exclusive to inspections or the sole responsibility of any one person associated with the property obviously. But as a tenant if you neglect to communicate the second hand damage caused by an underlying fault and work to repair is worse as a result - then it becomes a case of shared responsibility.
Common sense and the law says why should the owner have an issue which is exponentially worse because of failure to report what's a reasonable noticeable fault. No special talent or skill is required in this case, and it's in a location which is immediately obvious. It's just straight up negligent behaviour on behalf of the tenant. They were in a position to know, they should have reported it.
If a windows is stuck open and there's rain coming in, or you smell gas in the house from a leak are you going to wait for the inspection before mentioning it? Didn't think so. Just because it's not your personal stuff being damaged here shouldn't change the way you respond. There's damage being caused, it needs to be looked at quickly.
I'd take the vast number of down votes you've received as hint you're probably on the wrong track.
@peterpaoliello: Most people aren't familiar with the requirements of the law, so I won't lose sleep over the votes.
The onus is on the landlord to be able to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenant
Saw the damage.
Actually had a requirement to look for damage.
Knows what water damage is and what the consequences are.
The landlord was negligent towards the maintenance of their own property and didn't consider the risks to his tenants by letting them live in a property not subject to professional inspections.
Now, you want the tenants to pay the landlord for his or her own negligent behaviour? You can say the tenants should have known better all you like, but where the law requires the landlord to know better, he or she failed to maintain the property in a way that stands up to scrutiny in court.
@Assburg: Minor fitting failures are a normal part of any occupancy in any building, no amount of inspections would have prevented it, so not sure what you're on about there if you think more regular inspections would have changed the outcome.
I'll assume you haven't seen the photos either, it's in a doorway, on the side where it opens so within walkway, boards are so swelled they've lifted away from the wall at least 6-7cm in multiple places. I give absolutely no credence to your claim they needed to "look for damage" which they obviously didn't as they would have basically been tripping over it, or that it's unreasonable for a tenant to "to know what water damage is". To deny either of those is honestly laughable.
@JimmyF: Jeeze mate are you simple in the head or something. They have a requirement to notify the agency of issues, that's what we're all talking about except for you. I can't tell if you're being stupid on purpose now or what, either case you're too painful to engage with.
@peterpaoliello: Jeeze mate are you simple in the head or something. The owner has a requirements to do regular inspections and they didn't, so the fault wasn't picked up. How is the renter meant to know what 'water damage' is? Lots struggle to replace light globes!
Under 'renting law reforms':
"Renters must report damage and faults to their rental provider as soon as possible."
Point me to the bit that says they are liable if they DON'T report it though?
@JimmyF: Just look at the photos, if someone can't tell that's an issue there they're possibly also not intact enough to sign a rental contract in the first place. We can argue who's responsibility it is to check, there's definitely no arguing from the photos damage has occurred.
We can argue who's responsibility it is to check, there's definitely no arguing from the photos damage has occurred.
The renter did not damage the board directly. The water leaking from the shower via normal use damaged the board.
Just like if the house moved and 'cracked' a wall, would you expect the renter to fix that?
Should they have reported it? Yes for sure.
Are they liable? Nope.
Should the owner have been having inspections? Yes
As I said earlier, you can spot the landlords a mile away!
@JimmyF: Why else is the phrase in the contract if there isn't any assertion of responsibility. The issue could have been completely mitigated if the tenant advised of the very obvious damage taking place.
So you're saying a tenant can just not do anything about a leaking pipe when noticed, it leaks and ruins a room full of floorboards in a few days (between the quarterly scheduled inspections) and it's always the landlords fault? Even though it could have been fully prevented if they were advised?
If you're implying landlords are taking some creative interpretation of the contract because they are entitled as the tenant can 'do no wrong' I would strongly disagree.
@JimmyF: I own an IP and I'd hate to have you as a tenant. You seem to want to argue every point. Who has the energy?
It's a team effort. The tenant lives there. You got to tell us if something needs fixing. We also do inspections but it doesn't always reveal everything. Together we can keep the place really nice and livable.
It all falls down when one or more parties wants to be a gobshite about everything though. Buildings age, things break down. But if it's water damage it's really important to notify the owner asap.
It's a team effort. The tenant lives there. You got to tell us if something needs fixing. We also do inspections but it doesn't always reveal everything. Together we can keep the place really nice and livable.
It certainly is a team effort and neither team showed up for the game, which was my point. It is not clear cut that its just the tenants fault in this case.
But sure have them replace the skirting board. Its under $20 for 5m of the stuff from bunnings. But its not going to address the REAL issue. So as a landlord is it really worth the effort?
@JimmyF: No I would probably absorb the cost personally. It's a tax deduction anyhow. Definitely wouldn't think of charging to rectify the underlying issue, that's not the tenants fault.
No I would probably absorb the cost personally. It's a tax deduction anyhow. Definitely wouldn't think of charging to rectify the underlying issue, that's not the tenants fault.
Agreed. Its not the tenants fault to fix the source of the water leak and the skirting board is such a low cost item, why bother even fighting to get money out of them when you have a much bigger repair issue at hand.
I agree they should have reported it, but that ship has sailed and wouldn't really reduce the cost of the repair if it was reported 6 months ago. Still got to rip it all out to repair the fault.
@JimmyF: Do you really think it's replace the skirting board and job done?
And that is just the wall in the photos. Then there's the shower wall which will also need inspecting of the plasterboard, if not replacing, which will be a real (profanity) with the tiles and waterproofing there.
And all of the above is just the damage caused by the fault.
And all of this is just my basic home "handy-man" knowledge. Not a builder, plumber, plasterer; not a landlord. The biggest wall repair I've done at home was patching a hole in plasterboard from removed coax outlets.
Do you really think it's replace the skirting board and job done?
In the context of what we had been talking about that the tenant could even be remotely responsible for fixing by delaying reporting, then yes that is the skirting board at best. Everything else for them to fix.
And all of the above is just the damage caused by the fault.
Correct you are, all that damage listed was caused by the fault being the leaking shower. So was going to need fixing/replacing regardless of when it was first reported. Leaking shower like this was always going to be a rip out, redo the waterproofing and reinstall. It was never going to be fixed by a tube of sealer 6 months ago if that is what you had been thinking.
Correct you are, all that damage listed was caused by the fault being the leaking shower. So was going to need fixing/replacing regardless of when it was first reported.
Sorry but no. The mould, discolouration and swollen skirting boards don't happen over a weekend. This damage has been progressing over months. Even the carpet looks discoloured from prolonged moisturisation, if not actually wet.
Leaking shower like this was always going to be a rip out, redo the waterproofing and reinstall. It was never going to be fixed by a tube of sealer 6 months ago if that is what you had been thinking.
Yes it was. But there's now significantly more damage to the surrounding area than there would have been had the damage been noted earlier. I've had a wall damaged by water in the back our wardrobe and I noticed it a hell of a lot earlier than OP's significantly more exposed hallway damage.
How much blame/cost is attributed to the tenant/landlord I'll leave for the relevant bodies; but for the tenant to say that they only just noticed all this damage is a bit disingenuous.
"Renters must report damage and faults to their rental provider as soon as possible."
Point me to the bit that says they are liable if they DON'T report it though?
It is a breach of law resulting in property damage. The owners insurer will sue the tenant if they don't pay.
It is a breach of law resulting in property damage. The owners insurer will sue the tenant if they don't pay.
Again, point me to the bit that says they are liable if they DON'T report the damage not caused by them?
@JimmyF: You seem to be misunderstanding. They are not liable for the initial issue that wasn't caused by them.
They are liable for the further damage caused by their failure to report the initial issue.
They are not liable for the initial issue that wasn't caused by them
Agreed.
They are liable for the further damage caused by their failure to report the initial issue.
So the skirting board damage is/would be the first sign for them to have KNOWN the shower was leaking….and they should have reported it at that point. Which I also agree with.
So if they are not liable for the leaking shower, and not liable for the damage up to the point they knew that the shower was leaking, aka the skirting board swelling up.
Then what are you claiming the are liable for out of interest?
@JimmyF: I'm not the person you were replying to, but if I was the landlord I would pay for it. I would probably be annoyed that the tenant didn't report it earlier, but that's about it.
OP's landlord might choose to go to XCAT though. I'm not sure how XCAT would rule, but since there is a requirement for tenants to report damage as soon as possible, then this probably means that XCAT can enforce it somehow.
I imagine at worst that XCAT might make the tenant pay a small percentage of the cost to repair/replace any skirting board, gyprock or carpet that was damaged. I can't imagine XCAT ruling anything worse for the tenant than that, if anything at all.
I don't think it is worth taking to XCAT though, but OP's landlord might feel differently.
but if I was the landlord I would pay for it. I would probably be annoyed that the tenant didn't report it earlier, but that's about it.
100% agree they should be annoyed at the tenant and rightly so. But there is blame on both sides.
I imagine at worst that XCAT might make the tenant pay a small percentage of the cost to repair/replace any skirting board, gyprock or carpet that was damaged.
Agreed, but the skirting board is under $20 to buy new + fitting. The gyprock or carpet look 'ok' in the photos ATM so maybe just a paint on the wall.
I don't think it is worth taking to XCAT though, but OP's landlord might feel differently.
Agreed, but my point is, people keep saying the tenant should pay for not raising it, but pay what?
To repair the leaking shower? Hmmm no not really as they didn't cause that. Its a "It happens" event.
To repair the skirting board? People seem to say yes to this…. But isn't this the first sign the tenant would know the shower was leaking, so maybe they really shouldn't pay for that either, as there was nothing they could have done to stop that from happening.
So what is left, the gyprock or carpet? They look 'ok' in the photo. But sure maybe.
So yeah while its crappy from the tenant not to report it, I'm not really sure what people are expecting them to cover or what they could have done to stop the shower from leaking.
Sounds like the waterproofing has fatigued and failed. This is a really common occurrence, and has happened in every place I have rented causing serious mould issues. My last rental when we moved in had a damp carpet which was easily pulled up, with black mould all underneath. This was during our move-in day. We notified the real estate and demanded it be fixed. They claimed that the last tenant lived with it and it was no issue… It delayed out move-in by a month. The walls were brick and mortar but a lot of the paint had bubbled and peeled back.
I would argue that the water damage is due to old, fatigued water proofing from the shower indicating lack of maintenance from the landlord/property manager and you would be more than happy to front a tribunal to give you case. I will reiterate that this is a very common issue with particularly older, low cost rentals and one of the first things I check for if possible. Unfortunately during pre-lease inspections if another tenants belongings is occluding the wall and floor with their property it can be hard to see this until the place is vacated.
Your only worry is that you may have not taken reasonable steps to notify them of this issue. If it could be reasonably noticed during your tenancy that it occurred and you didn't notify them, they could use that against you. In the same note, If it was present during the last inspection prior to vacating, you may be able to argue that it was observed by the inspecting agent and they failed to follow through with the repair, or that if its their job to do an inspection with the reason to identify any outstanding maintenance issues, and they failed to observe and correct it from that, that they failed their duty of care; and you had been waiting for resolution since, prompting your decision to end the lease.
Was it like that when you moved in?
I don’t think it was like that when I moved in. :(
That makes no difference. You aren't responsible for major repairs. You are responsible for timely reporting of major issues, but the periodic inspections should have identified this too (and you could argue that the fact that it didn't supports the fact that you didn't notice either).
This is why landlords have insurance. This is why landlords do periodic inspections.
EDIT: In the absence of any written reports, just plead ignorance. You don't know when it started. Maybe it happened recently.
Landlord insurance does not cover this as it would be under general wear and tear.
@mrvaluepack: Ehh what? Water damage from a leaking or Burst pipe can certainly be covered by landlord insurance.. Would need to check individual pds but it definitely can be covered
https://www.berrillwatson.com.au/expertise/general-insurance…
@wozz: If its wear and tear from water proof seals or grout (which is usually the case) then its not covered.
@mrvaluepack: @mrvaluepack are you suggesting grout is waterproof? Also where did you get your stats from on what is usually the point of failure? Just curious.
I've dealt with a pipe failure myself
@wozz: Semi water proof. If there are cracks in the grout, there is a greater chance of water seepage and damage happening to the floors below. Bathroom seals and tiles are suppose to be waterproof and if they break or "wear", same shit. Experience :(
@SlickMick: @slickmick i don't think it was? I also don't think OP knows what the problem is.. if it's a leaking or burst pipe it may be covered. If you're suggesting it's not, please cite your source.
@wozz: You started by saying this event is the reason for having insurance. Now I don't know what you're saying
@wozz: leaking from an event, like a burst pipe or a storm - yes.
leaking from poor workmanship or failure of waterproofing over time - maintenance issue - no "sudden" event - is not covered generally
Unless you were aware of the shower leaking and you failed to notify the LL, or the damage was caused by you, then NO, it's not your responsibility…..
isn't that what rental inspections are also meant to pick up?
Sure.
look no offence to the OP - but how does anyone NOT notice that and ask the landlord to fix it a long time ago?
Someone appears to have handled those skirting boards, there's a crack in them like they've been picked up to investigate and broken in the process, then propped back up like that.
This is my line of thought. I'd be pissed if it was my place. I'm happy to fix anything, but urgent and obvious must be reported. It's just straight up not possible to miss something like this, not to mention probably the smell from the carpet.
Well given that the OP didn't notice the damage earlier, I would imagine this is the damage AFTER the landlord has had it inspected by someone.
Simple, identify the source of the damage.
If it is a leak from the shower or water infiltration from outside, it is not your problem.
If however the water damage is due to negligence on your part, then you are liable.
But the question remains, if you are not responsible, why didn’t you flag this water damage with your real estate before then? There is a fine line there, because essentially, you’ve let it get worse.
I guess the mistake on my side was that I did not report it. Its been like that for a long time now. The 6 months routine inspections from agent also had not picked it up.
If the routine inspections didn't pick it up then just say you didn't know it was an issue? After all the REA is an professional in their field.
yep. This helps OP enormously. How could OP identify it was an issue if the agent couldn't.
@lunchbox99: this puts OP in an awkwark position. REA says must have happened after last inspection, OP says no I've known longer but didn't report.
I think OP has no case if it goes to tribunal.
If shower is leaking, landlord to fix. Damage due to not reporting it is on OP.
@SlickMick: Yeah nah the OP can have a plumber, basically any plumber, testify that this is significant damage over far longer than 6 months. I had the waterproofing fail in my bathroom not that long ago and it was approximately 8 months of leaking and it didn't look even a fraction as bad as this.
@sir-screwball: Tenant-supporters have been trying to justify OP not reporting the damage by saying it may have been recent.
You aren't helping the case. Under what scenario is it okay for OP to not have reported this damage?
@SlickMick: If the OP noticed it earlier, there's no justification for not reporting it.
That being said, the OP has referenced that there was furniture placed near where the damage is and it was out of the way so they didn't notice it.
If the damage is older than 6 months, which based on my personal experience, appears to be MUCH older than that based on the swelling of the wood, it's more on the REA to notice and report it than it is on the renter. The real estate is there to specifically check for things of this nature. When I was a renter I had 3 monthly inspections and the real estate agents did a poor job of inspecting so I can see how the REA could let the damage go unnoticed for years, easily.
If the OP knew about the damage and didn't report it, it's at least partially his fault. If they didn't know about it and the real estate didn't pick it up either, it's on the REA.
And above all else… if the damage is as a result of waterproofing, grouting, silicone or other maintenance items being unmaintained for a lengthy period of time (which is VERY common with rentals) it's the landlord and REA that wear it.
yea this is a case of bad property manager but as a tenant, how do you miss something like this
@WT: You have something in front of it. Don't know about you, but I don't check the wall behind my couches.
@Zephyrus: the OP wouldn't be able to get into that doorway beside it if they 'put something in front of it' - doesn't seem that was the case
@MrFrugalSpend: .
Could have been hidden by an object, specifically a potted plant in front of it. Then we'll never know if the water damage came from a burst pipe or from watering the plants 😂
Didn't know it was an issue? Look at the boards, they're completely cooked. What a joke, the arrogance to argue something so stupid they didn't know it was an issue. What does it take, walking around in a foot of water before alarm bells start ringing?
The cost of repairs is likely to be the same once the damage became noticeable anyway. A tenant would never be responsible for this type of damage. If I was the OP I'd report the agent for attempted fraud.
How to do that? Report the REA..?
Consumer Protection is where you lodge your complaint against a REA if you are in WA. Other states may have their similar authorities.
If it is water leaking from the shower or another construction/building fault then the owner or body corporate is reponsible for repairs.
However, as a tenant you are supposed to report problems as soon as they occur so they can be fixed as quickly as possible, and further damage can be minimised. It looks like that water damage has been going on for a while. It doesn't look like it happened overnight. You could potentially have some responsibility in that regard.
Maybe yes, maybe no. A leak can very quickly cause wood and plaster to expand and go mouldy.
So it could have happened after the inspection…
That's what I'm saying. Maybe nobody is at fault. In that case, it's the owner's problem.
@lunchbox99: That would be determined by the experts if OP had made a phone call 2 weeks ago. Since he didn't, it's irrelevant
@lunchbox99: OP said above that it has been there for a long time. This also means that OP knew it was there for a long time, and didn't report it.
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/10752001/redir
OP also said that there was a bed base near the wall which made it hard to see. I assume that OP is explaining here why the REA may not have seen it, because we already know that OP had seen it a long time ago:
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/10752009/redir
I still think it is the landlord's or body corporate's responsibility to pay for repairs, however, based on OP's description of events, the damage happened a long time ago and OP did not report it. Also based on OP's description of events, OP had placed a bed base near the wall which may have prevented the REA from seeing the damage. I don't think OP put the bed base there deliberately to hide the damage, but OP also didn't direct the REA to the damage that OP knew was there, and knew was obscured by the bed.
@funnysht: We know that OP did see it because OP says so here:
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/10752001/redir
Maybe OP moved the bed board and saw it? Maybe OP saw it before he/she put the bed board there? Maybe OP saw it while cleaning under/around the bed board? I don't know because OP hasn't told us how he/she saw it, only that he/she did see it.
Then OP goes onto explain that it wasn't noticeable in general because of the bed board. This provides a reasonable explanation as to why the REA may not have seen the damage, but not OP, because OP has already stated in the comment above that he/she did see it a long time ago:
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/10752009/redir
That doesn't mean that OP has to pay for the damage. The landlord should pay. However, OP really should have reported it as soon as he/she saw it - especially since OP was aware that the REA may not see it due to the bed being in the way.
It is actually a shame because if OP had just reported it straight away, it would have been a black and white case of the landlord needing to fix it. But now, because OP knew about it and didn't report it, OP has given the REA and landlord some leverage to use against OP. As a landlord I would still just pay it and not argue, but OP's landlord may be annoyed and want to fight it. I don't know how successful that fight may be though.
@wizzy: How could there be a bed base there? Its right in the doorway on the opposite side the door opens.
How could there be a bed base there? Its right in the doorway on the opposite side the door opens.
I don't know. I'm just going on what OP told us:
@lunchbox99: Uh… that level of mold and swelling in TWO weeks? No. No way. That's a slow leak over a lengthy period of time. If the leak is fast enough to supply that much water to the area, the water would have egressed far further than just that spot. You'd have soaked carpet and underlay, at the very least.
Pre-entry photos for comparison?
Unfortunately, cant find a photo of the section. Also had a bed base near to the wall there which made it even less noticeable.
For you to be liable you would have to have unreasonably caused it or to a lesser degree, let them know within a reasonable time of becoming aware, and even at that point in time, for the damage to be fixed the repair work would have removed a portion of that wall for inspection and then possible a whole lot more to fix it.
However, your real estate agent asking for you to fix it is just that, them asking you. They are asking you because they know they have no legal basis in forcing you to pay, so asking is their only option. You should phone consumer affairs about how to get your bond back without having to pay for this unreasonable repair. SirMurduck is right on below, get started on your own bond paperwork right away.
If you did not cause the damage and the damage was not noticable then I don't believe you would be found liable.
I suspect that the agent is trying to guilt you into voluntarily giving up your bond. I I were in your situation I would be requesting the return of the bond. If you claim first the landlord has 14 days to dispute with NCAT which they may not bother to do.
if there's no photo, they can't prove it already wasn't there. if they persist and take you to VCAT you will win 100%. the same thing happened with me and a damaged door. no evidence showing it in good condition.
If OP didn't specify the damage on the entry report and it's there now, it will be at OP's cost unless it was caused by a fault, and even then because it was not reported I expect the OP will be liable.
@SlickMick: you would think so, but I did the same thing (didn't submit damage report when I leased the property, but there was no existing picture of the back of the door) and later offering them some cash just to make it go away, they wanted alot of money so I went through VCAT as the renter VS landlord. I won! seems VCAT will often side with the renter.
The damage extends around the corner. Unless your bed head also goes around the corner towards the doorway how could you not notice this? It is fairly substantial. I have no idea how you and the agent did not notice this, perhaps the damage started occuring after the agents most recent visit?
Plus, it's clearly a door way.
Picture 1 - door closed
Picture 2 - door open
Damage like this takes a long time to get that bad so yes the REA has responsibility but so does the tenant. Makes me wonder when the last time they got their car serviced etc…
Also had a bed base near to the wall there which made it even less noticeable.
This could change things… IF the effected area was behind a bed or whatever and so wasn't noticeable, then you aren't liable.
You can't be expected to report things you don't know about.
They probably took photos before the inspection. Highly likely they hid it before you moved in anyway - looks like a shithouse waterproofing job that’s failed. Apply for your bond now, if they want to take it further THEY have to apply NCAT and the proof that you caused the damage
How old is the shower grout? I have the same problem in my rental and they regrouted to fix the issue.
Either way, they can't expect you to notice thing behind furniture. I'd fight any requests to reduce your bond return.
How did the damage occur?