Kota Kinabalu: The Consumer Claims Tribunal ordered a property management company to refund RM2,950 to a former tenant after finding that only part of the alleged damages in the rented unit could be attributed to her.
Tribunal President Salmi Zalinah Abdul Rahim delivered the decision after reviewing the tenancy agreement, photographs, WhatsApp messages and the Move-Out Report submitted by both parties.
Advertisement
The respondent, Iconix Co-Living Sdn Bhd, was given 14 days to make the payment. According to case facts, the claimant, Prescilla Prikles, rented a residential unit at
The Luxe by Infinitum, Kuala Lumpur, from May 4, 2024, until the tenancy ended on May 10, 2025.
She had signed an agreement dated May 11, 2024, and paid a total deposit of RM3,700 comprising a security deposit (RM2,800), utilities deposit (RM700) and access card deposit (RM200).
Prescilla vacated the unit at the end of her tenancy and claimed she had no outstanding rental or dues to the management. However, on May 15, 2025, the respondent sent her a Move-Out Report via WhatsApp, listing several alleged damages and informing her that her entire deposit would be forfeited.
The claimant disputed several items in the report, including damage to a glass door, termite-eaten flooring and a collapsed ceiling. She then filed a claim before the Tribunal seeking the full return of her RM3,700 deposit.
In its findings, the Tribunal noted that the tenancy agreement required the tenant to pay various deposits for security, utilities, keys and access cards, but the respondent did not provide a clear breakdown of the actual repair costs imposed on the claimant.
Salmi found that the collapsed ceiling was unlikely caused by the claimant, as the damage was reported on May 9, 2024.
“It was founded that – just five days after the claimant moved in; termite damage to the flooring, which the claimant reported on March 25, 2025, may have developed during the tenancy, but was not conclusively proven to be her fault,” she said.
“There also issues relating to the shoe rack were covered under Clause 3.3 and Annexure 1 of the tenancy agreement, and the respondent had issued a warning notice dated March 22, 2025; and the respondent failed to prove that the damaged glass door was caused by the claimant, who said it was already in that condition at the start of her tenancy,” Salmi said.
The Tribunal concluded that some of the defects were due to fair wear and tear or natural causes, while others could possibly be linked to the tenant.
However, because the respondent failed to submit proper invoices or a detailed list of actual repair charges, the Tribunal relied only on the general repair quotation contained in the Move-Out Report.
Based on this, the Tribunal found that the respondent could only claim for three items: flooring repair (RM300), wall touch-up (RM350) and washing machine service (RM100), totalling RM750.
