Lin v Cornish [2015] NSWCATCD 134

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Lin v Cornish [2015] NSWCATCD 134 Hearing dates: 10 September 2015 Decision date: 27 October 2015 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: C R Xuereb, General Member Decision: The respondents must pay $1,237.00 to the applicant immediately.

Rental Bond Services is directed to pay the landlord, Lin Tao, $1,237.00 from Rental Bond Number E727494-1. Any amount received is to be credited against the money order. Any balance of the bond is to be paid to the tenants, Lindsay Cornish and Louise Coe. Catchwords: Outgoing condition report completed in absence of tenants, photographic evidence to establish state and condition of premises. Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 Residential Tenancies Act 2010 Cases Cited: Hall v Hawkins [2015] NSWCATAP 197 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Tao Lin (applicant) Lindsay Cornish and Louise Coe (respondents) Representation: Ms Gail Preston (Applicant) In person (Respondents) File Number(s): RT 15/38833 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

APPLICATION 1. On 17 June 2015 application was made to the Tribunal on behalf of Tao Lin seeking an order regarding the payment of a rental bond. The respondents were the former tenants of the premises at Castle Hill under a Residential Tenancy Agreement ("lease"). The applicant was the landlord. The lease was dated 9 November 2012. The lease provided that the term of the tenancy was 52 weeks starting on 9 November 2012 and ending on 7 November 2013. The lease continued in force as a periodic agreement until the tenants vacated the premises on 1 June 2015. 2. The applicant claims that when the tenant vacated the premises the premises were left in a state which required further cleaning, the yard needed further cleaning, the premises had to be sprayed for pests, four keys were not returned, external light globes had to be replaced and there were repairs necessary to a letterbox. 3. The monetary claims made in respect of each of the items were: * cleaning of premises – $1,551 * yard cleaning – $150 * pest spray – $265 * replacement of 4 keys – $12 * external global replacements – $200 (approximately) * repairs to letterbox – $75 1. The application sought an order that the monetary claims be paid to the applicant out of the rental bond and any surplus be paid to the respondents. 2. The matter came before the Tribunal for a conciliation hearing in a group list on 8 July 2015. The parties were unable to resolve the dispute at the conciliation hearing and the Tribunal gave directions in the form of orders about the future conduct of the proceedings. 3. The orders required the applicant to provide the respondents and to the Tribunal all documents on which the applicant intended to rely at the hearing by 22 July 2015. The orders also required the respondents to provide to the applicant and to the Tribunal all documents on which they intended to rely by 5 August 2015. The applicant lodged the applicant's documents on 21 July 2015 and the respondents lodged their documents on 6 August 2015. Both parties were ready to proceed when the matter came before the Tribunal for hearing on 10 September 2015. 4. At the hearing, the applicant's claim was amended. Further claims were made for pool repair and cleaning at a cost of $420.00 and for the replacement of a top bedroom blind at a cost of $575.00. However, the claim for the bedroom blind replacement was not pressed by the applicant at the hearing. 5. The claim for cleaning was reduced from $1,551.00 to $1,410.00, the cost of the external global replacements was increased from $200.00 (approximately) to $330.00 and the letterbox repair was increased from $75.00 to $90.00. It appears that the discrepancy in the amounts claimed for cleaning was due to a miscalculation of the GST component.