Maroney v Bullard

[2016] ACAT 33

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

MARONEY v BULLARD (Residential Tenancies) [2016] ACAT 33

RT 1139/2015

Catchwords:              RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES – rental bond dispute – whether tenant improvements are excused from ‘make good’ at end of lease – whether damage to property was fair wear and tear – difference between same state of cleanliness and same condition, fair wear and tear excepted, at end of lease

Legislation cited:      Residential Tenancies Act 1997 sch 1 s 64

Cases cited:Alamdo Holdings Pty Limited v Australian Window Furnishings (NSW) Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 224

JSMManagement Pty Ltd v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd [2011] VSC 339
Patmore & Anor v Hamilton [2014] VSC 275
Regis Property Company Ltd and Dudley [1959] AC 370
Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 236 CLR 272
Taylor v Webb [1937] 2 KB 283

Tribunal:                   President G McCarthy

Date of Orders:  22 April 2016

Date of Reasons for Decision:         22 April 2016

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )

CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL       )          RT 1139/2015

BETWEEN:

JACLYN MARONEY

Applicant/Lessor

AND:

ANDREW BULLARD

ANNE BULLARD

Respondents/Tenants

TRIBUNAL:             President G McCarthy

DATE:  22 April 2016

ORDER

The Tribunal Orders that:

1. The tenants pay the lessor compensation in the sum of $768 comprised of $528 by way of compensation for damage to the premises and $240 for cleaning the premises.

2. The Office of Rental Bonds is directed to release $768 of the bond to the lessor to be credited against the sum payable under order 1.

3. The Office of Rental Bonds is directed to release the balance of the bond ($832) to the tenants.

………………………………..

President G McCarthy

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 12 October 2013, the applicant lessor, Ms Jaclyn Maroney, leased her property in Gunghalin, ACT to the respondent tenants, Mr and Mrs Andrew and Anne Bullard, for a rent of $400 per week. Mr and Mrs Bullard occupied the property for approximately two years, with a final inspection occurring on 21 October 2015.

2. Despite cordial dealings between the lessor’s agent and the tenants during the course of tenancy, a dispute arose at its conclusion over the condition of the property and whether the lessor was entitled to deduct money from the bond to cover the costs of repairing damage to the property and cleaning the property to a standard required at the conclusion of the lease under clause 64 of the tenancy agreement. The dispute was not resolved, and so by application to the Tribunal dated 4 February 2016 the lessor claimed compensation of $2,002 to cover:

   ...the remaining costs in returning the property to an acceptable as at commencement of tenancy state, taking into consideration fair wear and tear.

3. Ms Sian Day from the property management agency, Property Difference, appeared on behalf of the lessor. Mr Bullard appeared with leave by telephone for himself and on behalf of his wife.

4. The lessor claims compensation comprised of the following items:

   (a)$1,762, being a portion of an invoice in the sum of $2,002 inclusive of GST for internal painting of…