The tenant moved out of the apartment and left it in an untidy condition. The district court ordered the tenant to pay, among other things, 14,000 euros in renovation costs as compensation.
Tenant was ordered by the courts to pay his former landlord damages and court costs totaling more than 28,000 euros in connection with the damages caused in the apartment.
The tenant had rented the apartment from its owner in 2010. According to the owner, the apartment in Tampere was still in good condition at that time.
When the tenant moved out of the apartment in 2020, the apartment was inspected. According to the landlord, at that time it became apparent that the apartment was “in an uninhabitable condition and completely ruined”.
The wall tiles in the kitchen had come off and the kitchen appliances were stubbornly dirty.
The owner of the apartment took the matter to the courts and demanded that the tenant pay about half of the repair costs and half of the loss of rental income from the renovation.
“After the rental apartment was damaged, health checks and repair work have been carried out in the apartment for 29,815 euros in order to make the apartment livable,” the landlord said in his claim for compensation.
Lessor described that almost all surfaces of the apartment were covered with thick, hardened dirt.
The plastic carpets were dirty all over, the walls stained. There were, among other things, food residues on the kitchen furniture. In connection with the plumbing renovation carried out in the housing association in 2004–2005, the renovated bathroom was covered with a layer of dirt and the toilet bowl was broken.
Fixed furniture and surfaces had also been destroyed: the kitchen cabinet door was off its hinges, kitchen tiles had come off, electrical boxes had been broken or removed. The apartment also had a very pungent smell.
There were food residues and other dirt on the kitchen furniture.
It had been agreed in the lease that smoking is not allowed in the apartment, but the surfaces of the apartment had turned yellow – according to the landlord, because of smoking.
According to the landlord, the tenant must have understood that neglecting cleaning and careless use of the apartment causes damage to the apartment that is different from normal wear and tear.
The lessor said that due to the dirt, marks and smell, they had to remove all the wallpaper and plastic floor mats from the apartment, repaint the wallpapered and painted surfaces, and renew the kitchen appliances, fixed furniture and floor materials.
Tenant demanded that the action for damages be dismissed.
According to the tenant, the owner of the apartment wanted to do a complete renovation of the apartment, and the tenant was not responsible for the basic renovation. According to the tenant, it would have been “just normal wear and tear and cleaning alone would have been enough”. He admitted that he had broken the toilet seat, but described the damage as minor.
According to the tenant, it was normal wear and tear of the apartment.
The tenant admitted that the apartment was in need of thorough renovation at the end of the tenancy. However, he did not feel that he was responsible for the need for renovations caused to the apartment during the long tenancy.
The tenant appealed to the technical service life of the apartment’s surfaces and fixed furniture and to the fact that no surface renovation work had been done in the apartment during his years of residence. According to the tenant, the technical useful lives had been exceeded, which is why the owner would have had to renovate the apartment in any case.
The tenant also denied the landlord’s mention that there was smoking in the apartment contrary to the terms of the lease. The tenant claimed to have smoked in the apartment only years before, during the previous owner’s and then tenancy.
The plastic carpets in the apartment were covered in dirt, there were brown dirt marks on the walls.
The tiles and water fixtures in the bathroom were covered in dirt and stubborn stains, and the toilet bowl was broken.
In the apartment of witnesses who have visited according to the apartment was very dirty and in need of repairs, practically uninhabitable. The district court stated that the statements can be considered reliable, as all the witnesses are professionals in housing brokerage, construction or repair.
One of the witnesses had even considered it necessary to put on a respirator when doing the inspection, because the apartment had “such a rare bad smell” and he didn’t know what could be found in the apartment.
A witness who had a lot to do with apartment renovations described the apartment as a “brutal surprise”.
District court considered that the tenant was obliged to compensate for the repair costs of the apartment for the amount that was caused by the more extensive repair costs caused by him.
According to witnesses, the apartment was very dirty and in need of repairs.
The district court of Pirkanmaa ordered the tenant to compensate half of the repair costs of around 29,000 euros, i.e. 14,000 euros, after the rent deposit was deducted from the amount.
The district court considered that no evidence was presented to it that the apartment was in an uninhabitable condition, as claimed by the tenant, specifically due to the technical service life of the surfaces.
According to the district court’s assessment, the useful life was sufficiently taken into account in that only half of the approved renovation costs were required from the tenant.
The tenant was ordered to pay the legal costs of his former landlord.
The tenant was also ordered to compensate the owner of the apartment 2,360 euros corresponding to the loss of four months’ rent. The amount corresponded to half of the lost rental income for the period when the apartment was renovated.
The tenant was also ordered to compensate the legal costs of his former landlord for more than 12,000 euros.
The judgment handed down in April is legally binding.
Some of the electrical boxes were also broken.
Residential apartment according to the rental law, the tenant is not responsible for normal wear and tear caused by using the apartment for the purpose required in the rental agreement.
The law does not further define the content of normal wear and tear. Normal wear and tear has been considered, for example, to attach boards and mirrors to the wall, depressions caused by furniture, or the aging of the surfaces of the apartment over time.
However, the tenant must take care of the apartment carefully. The tenant is obliged to compensate the landlord for damage caused to the apartment by the tenant intentionally, through negligence or other carelessness.
He was the first to tell about the verdict Morning paper.
Read more: These are the roughest apartments that many people wouldn’t even enter
Read more: An unbearable smell hung in the stairwell for months – The tenant destroyed the worker’s apartment with waste up to the concrete walls
#Judgments #violent #surprise #tenant #moved #left #apartment #indescribable #condition
