Costanzo v McFarlane (Residential Tenancies)

In the case before the tribunal, Costanzo, the applicant, sought compensation from McFarlane, the respondent, for unpaid repairs undertaken at a property managed by the respondent. The matter was heard by the Residential Tenancies Tribunal of Victoria. The applicant claimed that the respondent, as the property manager, had failed to pay for necessary repairs and maintenance carried out on the property, despite the applicant's compliance with the terms of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995. The respondent, on the other hand, denied any liability and argued that the repairs were not adequately documented or that they were not performed by the applicant.

The central legal issue before the tribunal was whether the respondent was liable for the costs of the repairs and maintenance that the applicant claimed to have carried out. The tribunal needed to determine if the applicant had discharged the onus of proving that the repairs were necessary, that they had been performed by or on behalf of the applicant, and that the respondent was responsible for paying for them. Additionally, the tribunal had to consider the respondent's counterclaim regarding the applicant's alleged failure to vacate the premises and return the keys in a timely manner.

The tribunal found that the applicant had sufficiently demonstrated that the repairs were necessary and had been performed. The tribunal accepted the applicant's evidence that the repairs were documented and that the respondent had been informed of the work carried out. The tribunal held that the respondent, as the property manager, was responsible for paying for these repairs. Regarding the counterclaim, the tribunal dismissed it as the applicant had provided evidence that they had vacated the premises and returned the keys within the stipulated time. The tribunal concluded that the respondent was liable for the outstanding amount of $1,737.18 for the repairs and maintenance. The application and counterclaim were otherwise dismissed.