PRD Nationwide Southport v Pratt
[2010] QCAT 583
•17 November 2010
| CITATION: | PRD Nationwide Southport v Pratt & Ors [2010] QCAT 583 | |
| PARTIES: | PRD Nationwide Southport (Applicant) | |
| v | ||
| Mr Nicholas Pratt, Ms Skye Sanders and Ms Marie Turrell (Respondents) | ||
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | 642/10 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Residential tenancy matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 19 October 2010 |
| HEARD AT: | Coolangatta |
| DECISION OF: | Julie Cowdroy, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 17 November 2010 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | [1] That Skye Sanders and Marie Turrell are each to compensate the applicant in the sum of $120 for cleaning and $16.50 for replacement of keys; [2] That the Residential Tenancies Authority pay to Skye Sanders and Marie Turrell the sum of $363.50 each; with the balance of their bonds, ($727.00) payable to the applicant/lessor [3] That the Residential Tenancies Authority pay to the applicant/lessor the sum of $580, representing that part of the bond paid by Nicholas Pratt; [4] That Nicholas Pratt pay to the applicant/lessor the sum of $1452.75 representing rent, compensation for the repair of damage, cleaning and replacement keys within 30 days. |
| CATCHWORDS : | Dispute over rental bond, Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2009,where both parties had a legitimate claim over a portion of the rental bond |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
The issue in dispute is whether the applicant is entitled to a rental bond refund of $1580 and other amounts in compensation for damage to premises.
Mr S Harvey of PRD Nationwide Southport filed an application on 7 September 2010 with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal naming Nicholas Pratt and Skye Sanders as respondents. On 12 October 2010 an application that Marie Turrell be added as a respondent was granted.
Hearing / Appearances
The matter was heard on 19 October 2010 at Coolangatta. Mr Harvey, Ms Sanders and Ms Turrell were present. All parties gave evidence.
Evidence
On 5 May 2010 the three respondents entered into a written tenancy agreement in respect of premises at 1/226 Queen Street, Southport for a period of six months from 7 May 2010 until 9 November 2010 and agreed to pay rent of $395 per week for the property.
The agreement was broken, with the three respondents vacating the property at different times. The last tenant vacated on 17 September 2010. There is a bond held by the Residential Tenancies Authority of $1580.00 which the applicant claims should be released to him, and the applicant also claims a further sum of $725.75 The bond comprises $500 each paid by Ms Skye and Ms Turrell, with Mr Pratt contributing $580.
The applicant seeks $2305.75 representing rent outstanding until 17 September 2010 of $1286.45 plus other amounts for cleaning and repairs totalling $1019.30. Ms Sanders and Ms Turrell argued that they should not be held responsible for rent after they vacated the premises. They had paid their share of the rent until the date they vacated.
Support for their lack of liability was said to be found in an agreement signed by Nicholas Pratt, Skye Sanders and Marie Turrell on 21 July 2010 agreeing that Ms Turrell was no longer a party to the agreement and a copy of this document is date-stamped as received by PRD on 23 July 2010. Ms Turrell pointed out that the applicant had not included her as a respondent in the application which indicated that he did not consider she was still a party to the agreement.
Also produced to the Tribunal was a document entitled ”Rental Release" which states that Skye Sanders is no longer an occupant and that she was signed off from the lease from 1 August 2010. This document was signed by Nicholas Pratt, Skye Sanders and a representative of PRD Realty.
The applicant pointed out that no bond release forms had been signed and any release from the tenants obligations was conditional on the signing of the bond forms. He considered that the respondents were still bound by the tenancy agreement and were liable for the rent and all expenses. He had been attempting to resolve the matter without success.
[10] The applicant claimed that there was considerable damage to the property. An invoice from JS Home and Building Maintenance to cement render and repair a hole in the car park wall and courtyard for $851.40 was tendered. Ms Sanders had paid $285, Ms Turrell had paid $283.80 and the balance owing was to be paid by Mr Pratt, who had paid only $84.00. The amount outstanding was $197.60. The respondents indicated that they paid 1/3rd share of the invoice because the damage, although not caused by them, occurred whilst they were residing in the residence.
[11] A further invoice from the same firm for plaster repair and painting of holes to entry wall/stairwell for $277.20 was produced. Ms Sanders and Ms Turrell indicated that that damage had been caused after they vacated the premises and that they should not be held liable.
[12] The applicant claimed $45.00 for replacement keys, which was disputed by the respondents on the basis that the keys were in Mr Pratt’s possession and they were not liable.
[13] Finally, the applicant claimed the sum of $495 for a full bond clean, including steam cleaning of carpets. Photos were produced which depict one bedroom floor covered in clothes and other articles but no other photos which would indicate that a full bond clean costing $495 was required.
Consideration
[14] The Tribunal carefully considered the evidence and submission of all parties in the light of the legislative obligations imposed on both the lessor and tenant.
[15] The respondents all signed the Residential Tenancy Agreement which did not expire until 9 November 2010. However, it is clear that difficulties in maintaining the tenancy and conflict between the tenants made the situation untenable. When Ms Sanders and Ms Turrell vacated the premises, it was their understanding that they would not be liable for future rent or compensation for any damage caused after that time. The fact that they both paid a one third contribution to the cost of repairing damage to the carpark wall is indicative of their perception that they had met their obligation.
[16] This perception was further bolstered on Ms Turrell's part by the signature of PRD’s agent on the notice dated 21 July 2010. To all intents and purposes the agent, on the lessor’s behalf, had consented to her removal from the tenancy agreement and the consequent obligations. Such release was in writing; nowhere was it noted that such release was conditional upon the signing of the relevant bond forms. Section 277 of the Act enables the ending of a residential tenancy agreement by written agreement of the lessor and tenant and I find that there was substantial compliance with this provision.
[17] I accept Ms Sanders and Ms Turrell’s evidence that the damage to the entry area was caused after they vacated. The Tribunal finds that Ms Sanders and Ms Turrell should not be required to compensate the applicant for the cost of repair.
[18] As to the cost of cleaning the premises, the invoice does not state how many hours were expended in this activity. The photos produced do not show in any significant detail that cleaning consisting of many hours was required or that particular areas required extensive attention. I accept however that some cleaning was necessary.
[19] To this end, I consider it reasonable that both Ms Sanders and Ms Turrell contribute $120 each to the cost of cleaning, given that there is no evidence that at the times they vacated the premises they were left in a clean and tidy condition. I also consider it reasonable that a contribution be made by way of one third to the cost of replacement of lost keys.
[20] As to the amount for unpaid rent, Ms Sanders and Ms Turrell were led to believe that they were no longer liable for rent once they vacated the premises. Although the agreement binds them throughout the term of the agreement, there is strong evidence that the agent, by accepting 1/3rd of the cost of repairing damage and accepting the various forms releasing them from the agreement (noting that one of them was signed by an employee of the agent), that supports an argument that the respondent is now estopped from arguing to the contrary.
Order
The Tribunal makes the following orders:
That Skye Sanders and Marie Turrell are each to compensate the applicant in the sum of $120 for cleaning and $16.50 for replacement of keys;
That the Residential Tenancies Authority pay to Skye Sanders and Marie Turrell the sum of $363.50 each; with the balance of their bonds, ($273.00) payable to the applicant/lessor
That the Residential Tenancies Authority pay to the applicant/lessor the sum of $580, representing that part of the bond paid by Nicholas Pratt;
That Nicholas Pratt pay to the applicant/lessor the sum of $1452.75 representing rent, compensation for the repair of damage, cleaning and replacement keys within 30 days.
0
0
0