Privacy Settings

Claim No: SCT 357/2022

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai

IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
BEFORE SCT JUDGE MAITHA ALSHEHHI

BETWEEN

LITAF

Claimant

and

LEDART

Defendant

---

---

JUDGMENT OF SCT JUDGE MAITHA ALSHEHHI

---

UPON this claim having been filed on 26 September 2022

AND UPON a hearing having been held before SCT Judge Maitha AlShehhi on 7 November 2022, with the Claimant and the Defendant in attendance

AND UPON reviewing the documents and evidence filed and recorded on the Court file

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Each party shall provide the Court with no more than two quotations for the repair of the freezer drawers and the fridge door by no later than 4pm on 22 November 2022. The Court will then determine the costs of the repair to be paid by the Claimant.

2. The Claimant’s security deposit shall be forfeited in favour of the Claimant minus the costs of the access key card (AED 315) and the costs of the repair of the freezer which will be addressed once the Court receives the parties’ quotations.

3. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the DIFC Courts’ filing fee in the amount of AED 375.

4. The Claimant shall immediately provide the Defendant with the final DEWA bills.

5. There shall be no order as to costs.

Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
SCT Judge
Date of issue: 16 November 2022
At: 3:45pm

THE REASONS

The Parties

1. The Claimant is Litaf (the “Claimant”), an individual who leased unit no. 00 in DIFC, Dubai, UAE (the “Unit”).

2. The Defendant is Ledart (the “Defendant”), the owner of the Unit.

Background and the Preceding History

3. The underlying dispute arises over a renewed tenancy contract entered into between the parties for a tenancy period from 15 September 2021 to 14 September 2022 (the “Contract”). The Contract provided that the Claimant would rent the Unit for 1 year in return for AED 95,000 to be paid to the Defendant in two cheques.

4. On 26 September 2022, the Claimant filed a claim in the DIFC Courts’ Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”) seeking a refund of the security deposit in the amount of AED 4,500 in addition to costs and interest elevating the amount to AED 7,500.

5. On 21 October 2022, the Defendant filed its defence to the claim alongside the acknowledgement of service form.

6. On 27 October 2022, the parties met for a consultation before SCT Judge Hayley Norton. However, they were unable to reach a settlement with respect to the Claimant’s claim.

7. In line with the rules and procedures of the SCT, this matter was referred to me for determination, pursuant to a hearing held on 7 November 2022 (the “Hearing”).

The Claim

8. The Claimant’s case is that he leased the Unit from the Defendant and all communications and payments with regards to the Unit were managed to Lavt (the “Agent”). The Claimant submits that he had never met the Defendant in person.

9. The Claimant submits that upon moving into the Unit on 19 September 2019, the Agent provided him with an inspection report/snag list (the “Move in Snag List”) The Move in Snag List sets out details of the alleged defects that were found within the Unit (the “Defects”). The Claimant submits that the Defects were not fully remedied by the Defendant despite the Agent’s follow up. In addition to the Move in Snag List, the Claimant was also provided with a handover sheet dated 19 September 2019 (the “Handover Sheet”).

10. The Claimant states that the white goods found in the Unit are more than 12 years old and, as a result of their age, defects are bound to be found due to this.

11. The Claimant alleges that the window locks in the Unit have always been broken in addition to the floors, the corner of the Unit, and the fridge/freezer. As with the ceiling, the Claimant asserts it is the Defendant’s responsibility to repair.

12. The Claimant asserts that he has handed over the Unit to the Defendant in a clean condition after having it cleaned and re-painted and left the access key card in the Unit itself, and has taken all steps necessary to vacate the Unit in the same condition as it was first obtained two years earlier, other than fair wear and tear.

13. Upon his move out, the Claimant received another snag list prepared this time by the Defendant himself, dated 16 September 2022 (the “Defendant’s Snag List”) which sets out the list of defective items that allegedly occurred during the Claimant’s occupancy of the Unit. The Defendant requested that the Claimant pay the costs incurred to rectify the damage found within the Unit. This request to pay was challenged by the Claimant on the basis that the items for which the Defendant is seeking payment were already identified within the Move in Snag List.

14. Within his written submissions and at the Hearing, the Claimant confirmed that he is willing to bear the cost of the access key card to the Unit.

15. At the Hearing, the Claimant confirmed that, although he has vacated the Unit, he has not yet produced the final DEWA bill. However, all outstanding payments owed to DEWA have been settled.

16. Based on the above, the Claimant is requesting for a full refund for the security deposit in the amount of AED 4,500 in addition to costs and interest on the basis that he should not be liable to pay for the items mentioned in the Defendant’s Snag List.

The Defence

17. The Defendant submits that he had not hire the Agent to act on his behalf with regards to this Unit and no commission or renumeration was ever given to the Agent in the past three years. He also submits that he shared this concern with the Claimant via email.

18. The Defendant claims that he has never seen the Move In Snag List nor does it appear to have been signed by him. The Defendant confirms the legitimacy of the Handover Sheet stating that it is signed by his representative, who has the authority to act on his behalf by virtue of a power of attorney.

19. The Defendant argues that the Claimant failed to appropriately hand over the Unit and submits that the painting of the Unit was not carried out properly. The Defendant requested the Claimant to recall his painters, but he refused to do so. In addition, the Defendant submits that a number of items were damaged and cannot be considered as “fair wear and tear” including the freezer drawers, the fridge shelf, window lock, ceiling light, tiles in the kitchen, mirror cabinet, glass stove and the master bathroom door. As such, and in accordance with paragraph 24 of the addendum of the Contract, the Defendant is of the view that the Claimant is liable for such costs and this ought to be deducted from the security deposit as per the wording below:

20. The Defendant submits that the Claimant has failed to returnthe access card, parking card and provide the final DEWA bills as required in paragraph 25 of the addendum of the Contract, wherein it states that:

21. The Defendant submits that he had performed full and complete maintenance on the Unit prior to the Claimant’s move in back in 2019 and further maintenance was performed during throughout the Claimant’s occupancy of the Unit, the costs of which amount to AED 12,197.50. The Defendant argues that if no full maintenance had been performed by the Defendant, then why would the Claimant have renewed his tenancy contract twice.

22. As a result, the Defendant denies the Claimant’s claim in full.

Discussion

23. This dispute is governed by the DIFC Leasing Law No.1 of 2020 (the “Leasing Law”) in conjunction with the relevant Contract.

24. In essence, the disagreement between the parties pertains to whether the Defendant is entitled to refrain from refunding the Claimant’s security deposit and who (if anyone) is liable for repairing the damages in the Unit.

25. While the Defendant disputes the legitimacy of the Move in Snag List which was given to the Claimant by the Agent and he alleges that he had never had sight of it before, I note that the Defendant seeks to rely upon the Handover Sheet which was provided to the Claimant by the Agent.

26. This raises the question as to whether the Agent was in fact acting on behalf of the Defendant or not, as I find the Defendant’s statements in this regard to be contradictory. I find it strange to admit the existence of one document but refuse the other, especially since they are produced by the same Agent and were signed on the same day being 19 September 2019.

27. Furthermore, the Claimant submits that all payments pertaining to the rent of the Unit were made to the Agent only. If this were to be the case, it means that the Defendant must have, in turn, received the rent payment directly from the Agent or else he would not have received any payments for the Unit.

28. In the Hearing, the Defendant confirmed that the Agent was representing him only upon signing the Contract and not continuously throughout the year. That being said, I find that the Move In Snag List and the Handover Sheet are both admissible as both of these were produced upon signing the Contract.

29. It is worth mentioning that an incident occurred throughout the Claimant’s occupancy of the Unit which resulted in the washing machine not working which required the Claimant to call the Agent to sort the issue out. The Agent then contacted the Defendant to replace the washing machine, which the Defendant tried to do however, during the process, it seems the washing machine was removed from the Unit by the Agent which caused problems between the Claimant and Defendant.

30. Having reviewed the maintenance bills submitted by the Defendant as proof that the Unit has been well maintained before and during the Claimant’s tenure, I find that the majority of the work performed relates to the AC chiller and the ceiling which is in any event the sole responsibility of the Landlord/Defendant.

31. Article 23(1) of the Leasing Law reads as follows:

32. Even though the article above does not make it mandatory for the Defendant i.e Lessor to produce a condition report/snag list, I find that one ought to have been produced to protect both parties’ rights and to avoid the situation which the parties are in today.

33. With regards to the interpretation of fair wear and tear, the Leasing Law defines it as:

34. The Leasing Law provides the Lessor (the Defendant) the right to use the security deposit from the Claimant on one condition only which is mentioned in Article 22(5) that reads as follows:

35. I do not consider that this case fits those requirements as the Claimant paid the rent in full and has not breached the contract.

36. By virtue of the Defendant’s rejection of the Move In Snag List and pursuant to Article 23(8) of the Leasing Law which reads as follows:

37. The Court shall now determine the dispute based on the evidence before it. And given that the Claimant has provided the Court with such evidence signed by himself and the Agent, I find that the Move In Snag List and the Handover Sheet are admissible.

38. This brings us to the exercise of comparing both documents together and seeing whether the items were already encompassed in the Move In Snag List.

39. Article 34(3) of the Leasing Law reads as follows:

40. The Defendant’s Snag List includes the following quotations:

41. The above list does not include the costs of repairing the freezer drawers and the fridge door which is calculated to be in the amount of AED 1,071. In addition, the cost of replacing the access key is AED 315. Accordingly, the total amount to be paid to the Defendant is AED 4,442 which is technically the Claimant’s entire security deposit.

42. Upon review of the Move In Snag List and the Defendant’s Snag List shown above, I have come to the conclusion that items 2,4,5,7,8, 9 and 10 are encompassed in the Move In Snag List. Therefore, the Claimant is not liable to repay those amounts.

43. Regarding item 1, the Court deems this to be the responsibility of the Defendant in any event.

44. In relation to items 3 and 6, I am of the view that this falls under the definition of fair wear and tear. As a result, this does not fall within the Claimant’s responsibility.

45. I now turn to the freezer and fridge issue; it has come to my attention that the alleged price put forward by the Defendant to repair these items is not supported by any evidence in the form of a quotation from a maintenance company. Hence, the Court has no clue as to how the Defendant has arrived at the alleged figure i.e AED 1,071 and I am not satisfied to order the Claimant to pay this amount at this stage.

46. Regardless of the above, the Move In Snag List identifies the fridge’s status as “Okay” and no further notes or comments were mentioned on the condition of the fridge, unlike the other items. As such, I am inclined to grant this in favour of the Defendant as I can see no evidence provided by the Claimant which describes any defects being found in relation to the fridge upon moving in, although I do acknowledge the Claimant’s argument that the white goods are very old in nature.

47. In the interest of justice and fairness to both parties, I direct that each party shall provide the Court no more than two quotations in relation to the cost for repairing the freezer drawers and the fridge door by no later than 4pm on 22 November 2022. The Court will then determine the costs of the repair to be paid by the Claimant.

48. As to the access key cards, the Claimant confirmed in the Hearing that he is willing to settle this amount. Consequently, the Claimant shall pay the Defendant AED 315.

Conclusion

49. In light of the aforementioned, I direct that each party shall provide the Court with no more than two quotations in relation to repair of the freezer drawers and the fridge door by no later than 4pm on 22 November 2022. The Court will then determine the costs of the repair to be paid by the Claimant.

50. The Claimant’s security deposit shall be forfeited in favour of the Claimant minus the costs of the access key card (AED 315) and the costs of the repair of the freezer which will be addressed once the Court receives the parties’ quotations.

51. The Claimant shall immediately provide the Defendant with the final DEWA bills.

52. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the DIFC Courts’ filing fee in the amount of AED 375.

53. There shall be no order as to costs.