Ovari and Ahluwalia & Ors (Residential Tenancies)
[2011] ACAT 50
•4 July 2011
ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
OVARI AND AHLUWALIA & ORS (Residential Tenancies) [2011] ACAT 50
RT 522 of 2011
Catchwords: RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES – breach of residential tenancy agreement - notice to remedy – notice to vacate –– compensation for damages
Tribunal: Ms J. Lennard, Senior Member
Date of Orders: 4 July 2011
Date of Reasons for Decision: 1 August 2011
IN THE ACT CIVIL & )
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ) FILE NUMBER
RT 522 of 2011
Attila & Gabriella OVARI
Applicant/LessorRaman AHLUWALIA &
Ravi PAULRespondents/Tenants
Tribunal : Jann Lennard- Senior Member
Date : 4 July 2011
AMENDED ORDER
The Tribunal orders in respect of premises at :
The tenants are to pay the lessors the sum of $ 4,824.98 being:
a.$500.00 for cleaning
b.$ 3,653.00 for repairs
c.$360.00 for gardening
d.$119.00 for application fee
e.$192.98 for water consumption
Taking into account the compensation of $4,824.98 less released bond monies of $1600.00, the total amount owed by the tenants to the lessors is $3,224.98.
The Office of Rental Bonds is directed to release $1,600.00 to the lessors.
The abovementioned amount is to be paid by instalments of $200.00 per week, the first payment of which is to be on 14 July 2011.
On default, the whole balance then outstanding is due and payable.
The Respondents are to pay by direct deposit to lessors’ account ***-*** (BSB) ************* (a/c number) using reference RT 11/522.
Mr James Gralton
Registrar
for Jann Lennard
Senior Member
ACT Civil & Administrative Tribunal
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Applicants are the owners of premises in Calwell.
On 23 November 2009, they entered into a residential tenancy agreement in relation to those premises with the Respondents.
A condition of premises report was completed and signed by the lessors’ agent, Mr Zoltan Óvári on 23 November 2011. This is a standard Registrar-General’s office form, with little detail and it appears that the entire form was completed by the lessors’ agent. There is no evidence as to whether the tenants were afforded an opportunity to annotate or consider the content of the form.
During the tenancy 4 notices to remedy were served on 22/04/10, 03/07/10, 07/01/11 and 17/01/11. Each notice to remedy related to an alleged breach of clause 63(c) of the Residential Tenancy Agreement:
63 During the tenancy, the tenant must—
(a)not intentionally or negligently damage the premises or permit such damage; and
(b)notify the lessor of any damage as soon as possible; and
(c)take reasonable care of the premises and their contents, and keep them reasonably clean, having regard to their condition at the time of the commencement of the tenancy and the normal incidents of living.
A notice to vacate the premises was served on 11 June 2011. The Applicants made an application to ACAT for a termination and possession order and compensation on16 June 2011.
The Respondents vacated the premises on 24 June 2011.
The application for compensation was heard by ACAT on 4 July 2011.
The Applicants attended the hearing and were represented by their agent.
Mr Ravi Paul attended the hearing and represented himself and his co-tenant.
10.The ACAT heard oral evidence and submissions from each party. It was evident that the relationship between the parties was acrimonious and that the Respondents distrusted the Applicants and their agent. The ACAT received photographic evidence as to the condition of the premises upon vacation and invoices and/or quotes relating to the repairs of the premises.
11.Upon examination of the photos and documentary evidence, as well as the oral evidence of each party the tribunal found that the Respondents had breached the residential tenancy agreement and had failed to return the premises to the lessors in a reasonable state of repair and a reasonable state of cleanliness.
12.The ACAT considered the items claimed one by one and allowed the claims as set out below. The claim for the replacement of the stove was reduced from $1179 to $599 as a result of the evidence of the Respondents that the stove was available at the lower price; the claim for the vertical blinds was refused because the lessors could not establish any deterioration that went beyond fair wear and tear. The ACAT notes that the Respondents indicated that they were responsible for most of the damage, especially the damage to the carport, and further that they were willing to pay a fair amount but required proof of the costs incurred. The Respondents were always willing to pay the water consumption charge but did not trust the lessors’ account. This lack of trust arose understandably from the attitude of the lessors, and the fact that their agent prepared bills for water consumption and improperly imported the ACTEWAGL logo onto the accounts he generated, perhaps to add some notion of legitimacy.
13.In relation to the successful claims ACAT made the following orders for compensation:
a.Cleaning of premises $500
b.Gardening $360
c.Repair bathroom screen $59
d.Replace stove $599
e.Delivery and installation of stove $215
f.Repairs to carport $1800
g.Replacement of keys $110
h.Repairs to driveway and retaining wall $350
i.Repairs to carpet $520
j.Water consumption charge $192.98
………………………………..
Ms J. Lennard
Senior Member
PUBLICATION DETAILS
TO BE PUBLISHED
To be completed by Tribunal Staff
PART A FILE NO: RT 522/2011
APPLICANT:
RESPONDENT:
COUNSEL APPEARING: APPLICANT:
RESPONDENT:
SOLICITORS: APPLICANT:
RESPONDENT:
OTHER: APPLICANT:
RESPONDENT:
TRIBUNAL MEMBER/S:
DATE/S OF HEARING: PLACE: CANBERRA
DATE/S OF DECISION: PLACE: CANBERRA
PART B
RECOMMENDATION:
FULL REPORT ( ) CASE NOTE ( ) UNREPORTED DECISION ( )
COMMENTS:
0
0
0