Anthea Gregory v Adrian Farrant

[2006] ACTRTT 11

Anthea Gregory -v- Adrian Farrant

ACTRTT 11 [2006]

CATCHWORDS

Condition of premises – fair wear and tear.

LEGISLATION

Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT)

CASE LAW

________________________________________________________________________

Case Reference Number:     RT 1501 of 2005

RE: Premises at 23 Cullen Street, Watson  ACT  2602

________________________________________________________________________

Decision

Member:         J. Lennard
Date:              27 April, 2006

1. That the Office of Rental Bonds release $170.00 to the lessor forthwith.  The remaining amount of $130.00 is to be released to the tenant.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

1. The respondent is the owner of premises at 23 Cullen St, Watson, ACT.

2. On or about 8 May 2004 the respondent entered into a residential tenancy agreement in relation to the premises with the applicant as sole tenant, for a fixed term from 8 May 2004 to 1 March 2005, at a fortnightly rent of $640.00.

3. The tenant vacated the premises on 22 February, leaving her personal goods to be collected by the removalist, and rent was paid until the end of the fixed term.  The keys to the premises were returned to the lessor on 22 February.

4. The lessor refused to agree to the release $300 of the Bond of $1290, claiming that he was entitled to compensation for the cost of garden maintenance and cleaning of the gutters and the garage.

5. The matter came before the Tribunal on 30 September 2005. The lessor was present and the tenant was heard by phone hookup.

6. The Tribunal had before it;

   ·written submissions from each party,

   ·photographs of the garden of the premises,

   ·receipt from Grasshopper Lawnmowing for trimming, mowing and removal of garden rubbish in the amount of $80

   ·receipt from Aberton Building Services for cleaning of gutters and of the garage and garage bathroom area in the amount of $120.

7. Neither party supplied a copy of the check-in or check-out inventory/condition report.

8. The lessor indicated that the parties had corresponded by telephone, and part of the written submission of the tenant indicated that she understood from prior to the hearing date that the lessors claim was based on the condition of the garden, and the need for cleaning of the garage area after her goods had been removed by the removalist.

9. The lessor stated that the claim was based on the need to clean the gutters, mow the lawn and trim the trees and shrubs. However, the tenant had vacated on 22 February, the tenancy ended on 22 February 2005, although the fixed term did not expire until 1 March 2005.

10. The tribunal therefore examined the evidence of the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy and concluded:

    a)That the lessor did not have a claim for the cost of the mowing of the lawns;

    b)That the garden beds were overgrown and needed weeding, the garden paths were untidy and that there was a need for removal of garden refuse and pruning. The tenant had not left the gardens in a reasonable clean/ tidy state.

11. The tenant made some complaint as to the general state of the premises, but indicated that she had not made complaints to the lessor during the tenancy. The tenant further insisted that the condition report would support her contention that she had left the premises in a better condition that she had found it, but neither party supplied this to the Tribunal.

12. The lessor conceded that the bathroom in the garage was in need of repair and that it had not been available for use for some of the time. The Tribunal was of therefore of the view that the claim  by the lessor for cleaning of the bathroom was to be allowed only in part.

13. Therefore the Tribunal orders that $300 remaining in the Bond is to be distributed as follows: $ 170 to lessor and $130 to tenant.

Jann Lennard
Member
25 April 2006