LJ Hooker Nerang on behalf of Ines and Garry Allen v Paximadas
[2014] QCAT 450
•2 September 2014
| CITATION: | LJ Hooker Nerang on behalf of Ines and Garry Allen v Paximadas [2014] QCAT 450 |
| PARTIES: | LJ Hooker Nerang on behalf of Ines and Garry Allen (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Eleni Paximadas and Larry Paximadas (Respondents) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | MCDT482/14 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Residential tenancy matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Southport |
| DECISION OF: | Member McDonald |
| DELIVERED ON: | 2 September 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Southport |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The application is dismissed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Compensation for water invoices – leakages |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The applicant, LJ Hooker Nerang sought compensation for a water bills totalling $4,339.30 for two invoices, for the period of 2 November 2012 to 13 April 2013 period in the amount of $3,739.20, and a further $600.10 for the period of 14 April 2013 to 31 October 2013.
The respondents, Mr and Mrs Paximadas who were tenants on the 4 acre property during that period argued that they were not liable for the water bill for that specific period in that amount because they believed the property had a leak. There was a significant spike in water consumption during the above period but it had returned to it normal range thereafter. Mr and Mrs Paximadas contend that there had been a burst water main during the period, and in addition they had sighted numerous green patches on the property where they considered leaks were likely.
The matter went to hearing on the 8 April 2014 at Southport. LJ Hooker Nerang argued that they had a leak detector attend the property and that they were unable to find anything. The considered that the tenants were responsible for the full invoice as a term of their lease.
The invoice of 24 July 2013 notes that DCM Plumbing was unable to detect water leaks, but noted green patches and a leak in the membrane of the fish pond.
The invoice of DCM Plumbing of 21 October 2013 notes the detection of a loss of water at a rate of 500ml every 5 minutes. In an invoice to the Property Manager on 17 March 2014, DCM Plumbing indicated that they did not consider what the described as a “small” 500ml leak could be responsible for the bill, and further noted that they had found leaks in irrigation pipes in October 2013 and capped them at the time.
Mr and Mr Paximadas argued that their water consumption had not been more than usual in these periods but for the one off filling of a plastic pool of 1500 litres volume. They stated that they were wiling to pay for this in addition to their typical consumption of 1300 litres per day. They noted that the property was not water efficient and therefore they were not obliged to pay the water bill, but felt compelled to contribute to their water usage.
The parties were given the opportunity to submit further material in support of their claims. At an on the papers hearing on 15 May 2014, Mr and Mrs Paximadas submitted a statement about a conversation with Gold Coast City Council in relation to water leakages on the property, and were given until 9 June 2014 to file an electronic copy of this conversation, and the applicant was given until 16 June 2014 to file any submissions in response. Due to an administrative error the order did not reach the parties in time for compliance new orders were issued and new timeframes to comply with these directions were made.
Ultimately, Mr and Mrs Paximadas submitted the electronic recording of the conversation between Mrs Paximadas and Shakira Newton, customer services employee of the Gold Coast City Council, which occurred on 14 April 2014 at 12:39pm. No submissions in reply were received from the applicant in response.
Ms Newton indicated that council had sent several quarterly notices to the owners of the property in relation to the leakages since 2011. She indicated that the property is considered to have leakages until at least July 2013.
Based on this conversation it is clear that there has been leakage of water on the property for which the tenants hold no liability. It is the obligation of the owner to attend to such leakages. The Tenant is not liable for the excessive bill.
The evidence of DCM plumbing refers to a leak in the irrigation line which was capped in October 2013.
The bulk of the evidence indicates that there was at least one water leak which is likely to have contributed to the high level of water consumption in these two periods.
The residential tenancy agreement between the parties states at item 12 that the tenants are responsible for water charges. However, Clause 17(3) of the standard terms states that the tenants do not have to pay an amount for a reasonable quantity of water supplied for a period if during the period the premises were not water efficient. Further, the special terms at the addendum to the agreement not that the obligation to pay water invoices is contingent on the premises being water efficient.
The evidence of the tenants is that the premises were not water efficient during the period in question. There is no evidence from the applicant to disprove that contention. The tenants are therefore not liable for the water invoice for the period of 2 November 2012 – 13 April 2013. The application is dismissed.
0
0
0