Hodking Pty Ltd t/as Ray White Investment Management Services v Walsh - [2015] QCAT 51

CITATION:

Hodking Pty Ltd t/as Ray White Investment Management Services v Walsh [2015] QCAT 51

PARTIES:	Hodking Pty Ltd t/as Ray White Investment Management Services (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Adrian Walsh (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

MCDT267-14

MATTER TYPE:

Residential tenancy matters

HEARING DATE:

6 February 2015

HEARD AT:

Pine Rivers

DECISION OF:

Member Favell

DELIVERED ON:

16 February 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The respondent pay to the applicant by 4pm 6 March, the sum of $132.

CATCHWORDS:

Application for compensation

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:

Desiree Elliott

RESPONDENT:

Adrian Walsh

REASONS FOR DECISION

The applicant was a tenant of premises at 69 Everest Street, Warner under a General Tenancy Agreement commencing on 19 February 2009. He had been a tenant in the property for six years and moved out by giving back the keys on 3 October 2014.
On 10 December 2014 the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay to the applicant $2,062.15 for rent arrears only and ordered the RTA pay out to the lessor the sum of $1,640, rental bond in part satisfaction of the order and the balance of $422.15 be paid by the respondent to the applicant within 60 days. The application was then adjourned to be re-listed for hearing for any other compensation issues after 16 January 2015. It is that part of the application which came on for hearing today.
I am told by the representative of the applicant that the outstanding claim is for $517 in respect of carpet and flea treatment, $3,666 in respect of the cleaning and repairs and $492.27 for water consumption.
Under the Tenancy Agreement, clause 12.2, the tenant was to pay for water supplied to the premises. Clause 17 in accordance with ss 164 and 166 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 required the tenant to pay an amount for the water consumption charges in certain circumstances. Clause 17(3) provides that the tenant does not have to pay an amount for reasonable quality of water supplied to the premises for a period if, during the period, the premises are not water efficient for s 166.
The respondent contends that the premises are not water efficient and accordingly he does not have to pay for the water services charges.
I have not been provided with any evidence that the premises are water efficient.
Because of the contention by the respondent that the premises were not water efficient and the lack of any evidence to the contrary together with verbal evidence from the respondent that various taps were not appropriately fitted, I decline to make any order with respect to water consumption.
The Tenancy Agreement had two addendums attached to it. Addendum B contained special terms. Clause 4 of Addendum B required the tenant on vacating the premises:
(b)To have all carpets professional cleaned on the last day of the tenancy to a similar standard as provided by the lessor/lessor’s agent at the start of the tenancy.
(c)Fair wear and tear accepted, repair damage to the premises arising or as a result of the tenants or its guests’ actions including damage (if any) caused by the tenant’s pets.
(d) To remove all the tenant’s property from the premises including rubbish and property on the premises, not the property of the lessor.
(e) To leave the premises (including the grounds) in a neat and tidy condition.
(f) To fumigate as reasonably required if pets have been on the premises.
The applicant provided a tax invoice for carpet cleaning and flea-control treatment in the sum of $517. The respondent has provided two tax invoices. One for $181.50 and one for $99 dated in February of 2014. They were for carpet cleaning, professional deep steam cleaning. He has also provided the receipts. I note that the quotations do not however provide for flea treatment or fumigation. The cost of the flea-control treatment in the invoice provided by the applicant was $132 inclusive of GST.
The respondent has also provided a tax invoice dated 3 October 2014 (Exhibit 1) for $895 for:
supply or cleaning products, clean all windows and sliding tracks, doors and sliding tracks, washed all walls that were able to be cleaned without paint being removed due to the paint being too thin and old. Wiped mirrors in bathrooms, bathroom floors, shower recesses, tiled floors but not the bath upstairs due to being told that it is leaking. Washed sinks and vacuumed all carpeted areas including wardrobes, arc traves and all light fixtures, fan covers in bathrooms are too old to clean and were falling apart, washed all floors, stove and oven, rangehood, pantry, light fixtures, swept and mopped and cleaned garage, front and back door entries and paved areas. Vacuumed all carpeted areas after all works completed for carpet cleaners.
The applicant claims items for cleaning as set out in an invoice from Absolute Property Maintenance dated 19 October 2014. During the course of the hearing the respondent marked in green all of the items on that tax invoice which he disputed. He in fact disputes all of the items. He also marked in green those items noted on the outgoing condition report completed by Ray White. Again he disputes all of the items set out therein. The applicant has backed up the claims with a number of photos. Those photos do in part show items that may have required some attention, repair or cleaning. Some of the photos do not show any discernible problem.
The applicant filed with the application an entry condition report dated 19 February 2009 which was signed by the respondent and his then co-tenant. It was also signed by the lessor’s agent. The respondent has provided an entry condition report which is in fact a copy of the one filed by the applicant but with further comments (Exhibit 2). In essence the comments complained of the walls being covered in marks and chips, broken blinds and curtains, marks over the walls, scratches and knife cuts, broken or missing ceiling light fittings, oil stains on the driveway, broken security doors, dirty carpets, oil marks on the paving and pergola, missing keys and remotes, holes in the window screens, iron marks on floor coverings and generally very dirty premises in poor condition. I note that Exhibit 2 was signed by the then co-tenant of Mr Walsh as well as himself and it was faxed to two numbers being the then agents on 26 February 2009.
Exhibit 4 is a series of emails between the respondent and the then estate agent. Those documents and the print outs of the text messages seem to confirm that the state of the premises was in poor condition.
Bearing in mind the obligation of the tenant to return the premises in the state they were in, fair wear and tear accepted, I cannot be satisfied particularly after the evidence of cleaning being carried out (Exhibit 1) and carpet cleaning having been carried out, that the claims made by the applicant can be substantiated. With the exception of the cost of the flea control treatment of $132 the claims are dismissed. The order will be the respondent pay to the applicant by 4pm 6 March, the sum of $132.