Place West Rentals v Brooks

[2012] QCAT 511

CITATION: Place West Rentals v Brooks and Anor [2012] QCAT 511

PARTIES:	Place West Rentals for Kylie Hobbs
v
Aaron Brooks Prue Tucker

APPLICATION NUMBER:   MCDT862-12

MATTER TYPE: Residential tenancy matters

HEARING DATE:     21 August 2012

HEARD AT:  Brisbane

DECISION OF: Nathan Jarro, Member

DELIVERED ON: 8 October 2012

DELIVERED AT:      Brisbane  

ORDERS MADE:

The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS : 

MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – residential tenancy agreement – application for compensation – time limits – where application made outside the six month period

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008, s 419

Sendall v Howe and Anor [2012] QCATA 41

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION:

APPLICANT:	Alexandra Adam of Place West Rentals
RESPONDENT:	Aaron Brooks and Prue Tucker

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 4 March 2010 real estate agents Prue Tucker and Aaron Brooks entered into a general tenancy agreement to rent a fully renovated 6 bedroom, 3 bathroom Queenslander at 21 Hobbs, Auchenflower for $1,490 per week.  The tenancy commenced in early March 2010 and concluded in early July 2011.  The tenancy was managed by Paddington Partners Pty Ltd trading as Place West Rentals.  Ms Tucker and Mr Brookes vacated the property on 5 July 2011. 

2. On 1 May 2012, the managing agents of the property (on behalf of the landlord) filed a minor civil dispute application in the Tribunal claiming $4,393.60 compensation as a consequence of Ms Tucker’s and Mr Brook’s tenancy.  The claim for compensation was broken up into six items, namely:

   (a)      cleaning – $1,100;
              (b)      painting – $385;
              (c)       remotes replaced – $264;
              (d)      key cuts/repairs – $1,056;
              (e)      glass replaced door – $688.60;
              (f)       painting – $900.

1. Rental arrears pertaining to the property were discharged by the bond and the above claim for compensation was supported by appropriate invoices; save for the claim for the painting of $900 where a non-independent valuation was provided on behalf of the landlord.  The invoices are dated around August 2011 and I am satisfied related to the relevant tenancy.

2. Ms Tucker and Mr Brooks disputed most of the items for compensation.

3. At the hearing of the application, the managing agent indicated that on or about 16 January 2012 a conciliation application was lodged with the Residential Tenancies Authority (“the RTA”).  Since the rental bond was no longer held by the RTA, the matter could not be resolved at conciliation which necessitated the filing of the present application, some four months later and indeed some 10 months after the tenancy concluded.

4. The threshold issue for the applicant to demonstrate is whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the application.  If the Tribunal has jurisdiction, orders that the Tribunal can make about a breach of an agreement includes an order for monetary compensation.    

5. In order to decide the application regard must be had to section 419 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (“the RTRA Act”). Section 419 of the RTRA Act provides that a claim by a lessor or tenant for breach of the residential tenancy agreement must be made within six months after the lessor or tenant becomes aware of the breach: ss 419(1) and (3).

6. As previously determined by Senior Member Oliver in Sendall v Howe & Anor [2012] QCATA 41 at [10] (footnotes omitted) (emphasis supplied):

   …Although the Tribunal has a general power to extend time under section 61 of the QCAT Act, that provision must be read in conjunction with the provisions of the RTRA Act, the enabling Act, which confers jurisdiction on QCAT to deal with tenancy matters. Here, subsection 3 prescribes the period within which a compensation claim can be made. The language used is mandatory in that any application “must” be made within the 6 months.  The RTRA Act is prescriptive about the requirements for timeframes in which Notices under the Act can be issued and when proceedings can be commenced.

1. I respectfully agree. The RTRA Act is prescriptive about, in the present instance, time limits and when proceedings can be commenced. The Tribunal does not have discretion to extend time for bringing an application for compensation.

2. I have no alternative but to dismiss the application for compensation as it was made outside the mandatory six month period.  It follows that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the application and the application must be dismissed. 

Order

1. The application is dismissed.