Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd v John Gribbon Realty
[2013] QCAT 126
| CITATION: | Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd v John Gribbon Realty [2013] QCAT 126 |
| PARTIES: | Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd (Applicant) |
| V | |
| John Gribbon Realty (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | MCDT 2533/12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Residential tenancy matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 11 March 2013 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | J Bertelsen, Adjudicator |
| DELIVERED ON: | 25 March 2013 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The Residential Tenancies Authority pay out to the parties the bond of $2,160.00 as follows: Owner $750.00 |
| CATCHWORDS: | Post tenancy repairs – damages – disposition of bond – condition of premises – fair wear and tear |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd represented by Ashley Palmer, Manager and tenant & Suzette Palmer, tenant |
| RESPONDENT: | John Gribbon Realty represented by Janet Christensen |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Application
By application filed 13 December 2012 Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd seeks return of the bond of $2,160.00 originally paid in respect of the rental of 30 Goicoechea Drive, Bushland Beach.
Background and evidence
Mr Palmer is a Monadelphous Manager. Mr and Mrs Palmer resided in the premises for some 5 years and 8 months before vacating in August 2012.
The return of the bond was contested by Ms Christensen on behalf of the respondent agent which sought $2,245.00 for repairs which she contended were required to restore the premises to substantially the same condition as at tenancy commencement. A quote from Peter Whalley Homes Pty Ltd was produced. The quote itself specifies areas for repair but does not detail what repairs are necessary in each specific area. All alleged repairs were disputed by Mr and Mrs Palmer.
Repairs were put to the Tribunal as follows:
Toilet wall – it was painted a different colour to the original. Mrs Palmer explained that the toilet wall holder detached itself. It was reaffixed on the opposite toilet wall; that it was Shane (the agent’s handyman) who in fact painted it i.e. the now vacant wall in a different colour; that this occurred a long time ago; that it otherwise had nothing to do with the Palmers.
Bedroom 3 – it was asserted there were paint patches and dent marks as well as a mirror attached to the built in door. Mrs Palmer agreed that a mirror was left attached. Mrs Palmer stated that all bedrooms had paint patches and dent marks to some degree.
Bedroom 4 – it was asserted there were sticky tape marks behind the door. Mrs Palmer stated there were 3 small sticky tape marks; that a quick 10 minute clean with eucalyptus would have erased such marks; that in any event no opportunity was afforded to her to rectify; that such was in the context of having spent $1,000.00 on a bond clean (invoice produced); that same could easily have been rectified if notified.
The storeroom and garage walls were badly marked with some dents. Mrs Palmer stated the agents entry condition report referred to cream and red scuff marks on the storeroom walls and white marks on the floor.
Ms Christensen asserted that the lounge room feature wall was chipped and adhesive hooks left there. It became apparent this referred to the white wall beside the green feature wall. Mrs Palmer agreed some commando strip was left there; that the cleaners should have been notified and sent back to rectify. Mrs Palmer asserted she was never given the opportunity to take that course of action.
It was contended there were adhesive hooks at or near floor level in the kitchen pantry area. Mrs Palmer stated that at about the 3 year mark permission had been sought and gained to install a waterline to the back of the fridge (to make ice) at the tenants cost; that there was never any requirement for removal of the hooks at tenancy end. Ms Christensen referred to an email of 20 August 2012 referring to items requiring attention post tenancy. That email was sent to Monadelphous interstate. However it was with Mrs Palmer that the agent was dealing; it was Mrs Palmer who made arrangements directly with the agent for any repairs to be sorted out directly with her; that the agents representative at the time acknowledged that she was the person on the spot with whom to deal.
It was contended that the stairwell walls required plaster patches. Mrs Palmer pointed to the agents entry condition report which referred to a dent, chip on edge, chip and scrape halfway up left-hand side and dent.
It was contended that a series of yard stormwater pipes were damaged. Ms Christensen suggested that Mr Palmer had damaged at least one whilst whipper snipping.
Mrs Palmer asserted that there was never any itemised list of damages; only that the total appeared to equate pretty much exactly to the bond. Ms Christensen stated there were some other issues but that these had been rectified.
Mrs Palmer finally asserted that at the time of vacate the agents representative had promised to contact her if there were any other issues with the premises other than those that she had already attended to.
It is clear that the damage complained of is of a relatively minor nature and rectifiable at little cost. The photographic evidence is not indicative of any major work in terms of patching and painting. The builders quote does not refer to painting at all. It is not itemised in the manner in which the damage is alleged to require repair. Therefore item costs cannot be discerned with accuracy. Additionally some items as claimed appeared to have been put right by the owners/agents own handyman or substantially diminished when the entry condition report is taken into account. The Palmers were in occupation for the best part of 6 years during which time it must be expected that wear and tear would occur. Dents, scuff marks, and sticky tape marks (easily erased) fall well within this category.
Taking all of the above into consideration all that could be categorised as damage (and minimal at that) is removal of a mirror, removal of some hooks which might cause some damage (given that they were only ever adhesive), some minor patching and repairs to some stormwater pipes.
In these circumstances the Tribunal can only form an estimate of repair costs based on all the evidence. Any estimate obviously contains an element of the arbitrary. The Tribunal considers $750.00 a reasonable proportionate sum applicable to those repairs necessary.
Orders
The Residential Tenancies Authority pay out to the parties the bond of $2,160.00 as follows:
Owner $750.00
Tenant $1,410.00
0
0
0