Sneblic v Cameron
[2010] QCATA 12
•30 April 2010
| CITATION: | Sneblic v Cameron [2010] QCATA 12 |
| PARTIES: | Jelena Sneblic (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Graham James Cameron (Respondent) |
APPLICATION NUMBER: APL009-10
| MATTER TYPE: |
HEARING DATE: On the papers
HEARD AT: Brisbane
| DECISION OF: | President |
DELIVERED ON: 30 April 2010
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:
Application for leave to appeal refused
| CATCHWORDS : | RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES – RENTAL ARREARS AND COMPENSATION FOR CLEANING AND REPAIRS – where tenants vacated premises but had not paid balance of rent or completed cleaning and repairs as per lease agreement PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – where tenants allege failure to consider evidence and insufficient time to present entire case Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 28 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: |
| RESPONDENT: |
REASONS FOR DECISION
The applicant Ms Sneblic was a co-tenant (with Mr Anthony Fuddawahey Paul) in a dwelling unit at Buckingham Palace in Eight Mile Plains, which is managed by Garden City Rise. The respondent Mr Graham James Cameron is a Garden City Rise manager, and appeared on behalf of the owner of the unit.
On 6 July 2009 the tenants were provided a letter of offer for a six month renewal of their tenancy agreement. It included an increase of ten dollars to the weekly rent, which they duly signed on 23 July.
Shortly thereafter, the tenants were provided with a new lease agreement to sign. Unsure, however, whether they wanted to remain in the unit for another six months, the tenants returned the lease document in altered form, with an insert in handwriting changing the duration of the rental period to three months.
This was not accepted by management. After a failure to re-negotiate the terms of the agreement, the tenants received a notice to leave on 19 August; some six days later. The tenants then provided management with a notice of intention to leave.
Attached to the original tenancy agreement are some special conditions. Under clause 4 the tenants agree to have the unit, carpets and verticals cleaned to a professional standard at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants moved out on 11 October 2009. The unit was inspected the following day and specific defects were recorded in the Exit Condition Report, including items that required cleaning and repairs. The tenants agreed to arrange for their own cleaners return to the unit on the 12th. As it eventuated, the tenants’ cleaners were not able to enter the property complex to complete the cleaning.
As a result an application from another tenant to move in on that day was subsequently withdrawn. The managers then provided the tenants with a quote for external cleaners to finish the cleaning which was refused by the tenants because, they said, the cleaning had been finished on the 14th. However, the management still claimed to have found it necessary to engage other cleaners and repairers on the 15th. The unit was then rented out on the 17th.
Mr Cameron commenced proceedings with this Tribunal to recover $1492.52 from the bond, which consisted of $480.00 for arrears in rent, and $583.52 for cleaning and repair bills quoted by the cleaners and repairers.
The matter was heard before a QCAT adjudicator on 5 January 2010 who, it is apparent, carefully scrutinised the claim and noted that the total figure claimed by Mr Cameron was incorrect. Mr Cameron acknowledged that, and agreed that the claim should be $1063.00.
The transcript of the proceeding shows that the parties’ submissions were focused on the failed negotiations to renew the lease, the appropriate weekly calculation for the rental arrears, and concerns over the necessity for various items of cleaning and repairs.
With respect to the rental arrears Ms Sneblic, speaking on behalf of herself and Mr Paul, acknowledged that they were in arrears for the 10th and 11th. The only dispute was the weekly calculation rate used to arrive at the correct amount. Ms Sneblic submitted that it should be the original $380.00, rather than the increased amount of $390.00 offered in the letter proposing renewal of the lease agreement.
Mr Cameron also claimed arrears from the 12th to the 16th when the tenants and their cleaners were said to have returned to the unit to finish the outstanding cleaning requirements. This claim was also disputed on the grounds of the proper weekly rental calculation, and also whether it was necessary for the tenants to pay any amount for this period when they had moved out on the 11th.
Mr Cameron presented receipts for the work performed for the general cleaning of the unit, cleaning of tiles and an ink stain in the carpet, and for replacing damaged blinds. There was an additional claim for repairs for Blu Tack marks on the main bedroom ceiling for a quoted fee of $110.00.
Ms Sneblic made submissions about the cleaning of the tiles and the stain on the carpet including, she said, an undertaking from Mr Cameron that he would have the carpets replaced before they moved in. Mr Cameron later indicated that he was satisfied with cleaning of the carpet by the tenants’ cleaners so that it no longer required replacement, simply removal of the ink stain. Ms Sneblic did not address the replacement of the blinds or the marks on the ceiling.
The transcript shows that the learned adjudicator carefully considered the evidence presented by both parties and concluded that the tenants should pay to Mr Cameron $861.00 from the bond; while the remaining $659.00 would be returned to them.
The tenants now seek leave to appeal the decision. As this is a minor civil dispute, leave is necessary: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (‘QCAT Act’), s 142 (3)(a)(i).
In their submissions seeking leave the tenants allege that learned adjudicator erred in failing to provide details about the breakdown of the $861.00 payment; in allowing Mr Cameron to recover rent for the period 12-16 October; and, by failing to hear their supporting evidence or giving them sufficient time to address their defence.
The first complaint is without substance. In his reasons the learned adjudicator explained that the figure of $861.00 consisted of $108.57 for the rent owed for the 10th and 11th of October, $271.42 for the period between the 12 -16 October, and $482.00 for cleaning and repairs. He noted that the rental arrears were to be paid according to the original terms (evidently, as required under a periodic tenancy agreement), and that a reduction of $100.00 was made for the cost of cleaning and repairs in light of evidence submitted by the tenants.
Ms Sneblic acknowledged that the unit could not actually be handed over to management while they, and their cleaners, were still returning to complete the remainder of the cleaning. As they had not practically vacated the premises it was not unreasonable for the learned adjudicator to conclude that rent was payable.
The final assertion is, in effect, a claim of breach of procedural fairness. In the application for leave to appeal, Ms Sneblic alleges that “… none of our evidence supporting our case was looked at” and that she ‘…was not given adequate time to even discuss/comment on half of the claimed items because the adjudicator had ‘too many other people waiting’ to be heard that day”.
These allegations relate to attempts by Ms Sneblic to introduce new evidence and make further submissions about matters not raised during the hearing after the final orders were made.
Under section 28 of the QCAT Act the tribunal is required to act fairly and according to the substantial merits of the case. The proceedings must be conducted in a way which observes the rules of natural justice but, also, with as little formality and technicality, and as much speed, as the proper consideration of the matters before the tribunal permits[1].
[1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, s 28(3)(a),(b),(c),(d),(e)
When the hearing began the learned adjudicator advised Mr Cameron to start from the beginning and take him through his entire claim; and after hearing from Mr Cameron, he advised Ms Sneblic to give her side of the story. There is no indication from the transcript that the proceedings were rushed, or that Ms Sneblic was prevented from responding to each of the claims argued by Mr Cameron or advancing her own case.
The transcript also shows that the learned adjudicator was careful to ensure that Ms Sneblic was aware of the exact figures being claimed for rental arrears, and on a number of occasions asked her to clarify her position on points raised by Mr Cameron.
Even after making his final orders, the learned adjudicator still allowed Ms Sneblic to raise submissions about the marks on the ceilings and the replacement of the blinds and then gave Mr Cameron the opportunity to respond, but reminded her that he had made his final order based on what he thought was reasonable under the circumstances and all of the evidence that was presented during the hearing.
Ms Sneblic also sought to re-open the question about the necessity for cleaning and the adjudicator reminded her that he had already reduced this amount, in partial accord with her earlier submissions.
Although some of the learned adjudicator’s remarks in this post-decision exchange suggest a degree of exasperation, nothing in the transcript supports the proposition that his concern to deal with the matter speedily and efficiently detracted from the fairness of the hearing or lead to Ms Sneblic being denied the opportunity to present her case.
There are no demonstrated or discernable errors in the learned adjudicator’s conduct of proceedings, or the process by which he reached his decision, or the decision itself. Nor is there is any question of importance about which further argument is desirable or in respect of which a decision of the Appeal Tribunal would of public benefit. Leave to appeal should, then, be refused.
0
0
1