David Deane Real Estate v Corby & Inglis [2013] QCAT 130

CITATION: David Deane Real Estate v Corby & Inglis [2013] QCAT 130 PARTIES: David Deane Real Estate (Applicant) v Aaron Corby and Adam Inglis (Respondent) APPLICATION NUMBER: MCDO264/12 MATTER TYPE: Residential tenancy matters HEARING DATE: 11 December 2012 HEARD AT: Pine Rivers DECISION OF: Louise Mc Donald, Member DELIVERED ON: 3 January 2013 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: 1. The Residential Tenancies Authority pay out to the parties the sum of $1380 rental bond as follows: Lessor $319.00 Tenant $ 1061 2. The balance of the claim for compensation is dismissed CATCHWORDS: Release of bond, compensation, residential tenancy APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any): APPLICANT: Renee Davis RESPONDENT: Aaron Corby, Adam Inglis REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The Applicant claims $2,175.70 compensation from the Respondent for cleaning repairs and filing fee, arising from a dispute between the parties under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008. -- 1 of 3 -- 2 [2] The Applicant claims the Respondent former tenant owes this amount due to the condition of the premises at the cessation of the tenancy. Cleaning [3] The Applicant submitted an invoice from Tiger Dreaming Design for $740 cleaning costs. The invoice does not provide a breakdown of specific tasks performed, although it notes the overall cost includes carpet cleaning. The Applicant submitted extensive photographs of the condition of the house, arguing that the photos were evidence that that the Respondents made no attempt to clean the premises. These photographs did capture multiple aspects of the premises where significant cleaning would have been required to restore it to a clean condition. The photos submitted by the Respondent showed several items left behind in the premises. [4] The respondents argued that they had attended the premises on 26 September 2012 to rectify the cleaning, faults identified by the Applicant. They provided extensive photographs to portray the condition of the premises once they had completed their clean. These later photos suggested that the premises had been thoroughly cleaned and faults fully rectified, consistent with the entry condition report. They demonstrated that items had been removed and bins emptied. [5] Ms Davis acknowledged that the respondent’s photos had been taken after her own, but indicated that she considered that they were superficial and did not show the problem areas such as stove grooves. [6] The tribunal notes that the latter photographic evidence is more reliable evidence of the condition of the premises upon handover. The Applicant has not provided adequate evidence that the condition of the premises required cleaning as she asserted. Consequently the claim for cleaning is dismissed. Repairs Entry Door [7] The Respondent acknowledged that a leadlight glass panel in the door was damaged by a former tenant when the window blew and shattered the glass. They provided an affidavit from this former tenant noting the same. They considered that subsequent discussions at a routine inspection noted on a report dated 2/2/12 indicated that the owner had taken responsibility for fixing the door. This has not been shared by the Tribunal since the document notes under tenant’s responsibilities “fixing the door” as a tenant responsibility. [8] The Applicant did not accept that this was the owner’s responsibility and argued that the entire door had to be replaced plus deadlock as the leadlight was unable to be replaced. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 [9] Pursuant to s 188(4) the tenant is obliged to leave the property in the condition it was at the start of the tenancy, fair wear and tear excepted. Irrespective of whether the cause was accidental, the broken panel is damage caused by the tenants during the tenancy, not wear and tear, and they are liable to compensate the owner accordingly. I do not accept that the deadlock must also be replaced as a result of this damage and also a proportion for labour charged under invoice 0000167 should be payable. The Respondents shall pay $210 plus 21 GST plus $80 labour (plus $8 GST), for this damage, being a total of $319. Repairs subject to INVOICE FROM JP REPAIRS [10] The Applicant submits a handwritten invoice dated 10/10/12 from JP repairs with ABN 12626193874 in the amount of $723.80 for multiple repairs to internal and external walls and lights. [11] The Respondent submits that this invoice is misleading, being issued as JP repairs, but under the ABN of the owners pool business. They submit further that this is misleading or misleading within the meaning of s 216 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act. The Tribunal accepts the respondent’s submission and rejects this evidence. This evidence cannot support a claim for the repairs noted on this invoice. Repairs to Holes to door and frame Bedroom 1 and 2 [12] An invoice from C&M property Group for repairs to door frames and holes in doors in bedrooms 1 and 2, and flyscreen replacement dated 7/10/12 was submitted by the Applicant relating to damage to the door in these rooms. The respondents reject that they caused this damage and note that they did not put deadlocks on the bedroom doors, but they were present at entry. [13] The entry condition report notes deadlocks and minor damage on these doors and the flyscreens with small holes in bedroom 1. [14] The evidence suggests that the doors were damaged when the tenants entered the property. A six year tenancy suggests any further minor damage is likely to be reasonable wear and tear. This claim should be dismissed. Conclusion [15] The Tribunal concludes that the Respondent is liable only for the substantiated costs of the damaged entry door. -- 3 of 3 --