Mohamed v Nguyen (Residential Tenancies) [2019] VCAT 131

1. In R2018/29590, the landlord must pay the tenant the sum of $8,304.88.
2. In R2018/34581, the application is dismissed.

Sahra Mohamed in person, with the assistance of an accredited Somali interpreter

1. On or about 29 June 2017, Ms Sahra Mohamed (the tenant) sold a residential property in Tarneit, Victoria (the rented premises) to Mr Bien Nguyen (the landlord). As part of the terms of settlement for the sale, the tenant and the landlord entered in to residential tenancy agreement for the rented premises.
2. The written evidence of the residential tenancy agreement is a document entitled "Statement of Adjustments" for the rented premises dated 29 June 2017.[1] In that document, the adjustments allow for payment by the tenant of 12 months' rent in advance in the sum of $12,000; a "rental agent fee" for 12 months and what is described as a bond of $1,000. Both parties considered the residential tenancy agreement to be for a fixed term of 12 months, ending on 29 June 2018.
3. The tenant and her family continued to reside in the rented premises until late May 2018. It is the circumstances in which the tenant and her family left the rented premises that have given rise to these proceedings.
4. The landlord claims the tenant abandoned the rented premises in late May 2018 and so, following s 220 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (the Act), the residential tenancy agreement terminated at that time. The landlord removed all the tenant's goods and belongings from the rented premises on or about 2 June 2018 and did not allow her to re-enter the rented premises after that time. The landlord claims he disposed of the tenant's goods in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act.[2]
5. The landlord seeks compensation from the tenant for the condition of the rented premises at the claimed date of abandonment as a result of the tenant's breach of her duty to keep the rented premises reasonably clean[3] and avoid damage to the rented premises.[4]
6. The tenant claims she did not abandon the rented premises in late May 2018 or at any other time before 29 June 2018 and seeks compensation for her rental payment for the period 2 June 2018 to 28 June 2018; her payment of what she describes as a bond; the damage caused by the landlord's treatment of her goods and belongings, and the inconvenience caused to her and her family by the landlord's conduct in relation to the rented premises from late May 2018 onwards.
7. The first hearing of this matter was listed for the tenant's application for compensation. At that hearing, the landlord's representatives indicated they intended to bring a cross claim for compensation against the tenant. The tenant's application was adjourned to allow the landlord time to bring his application and have both applications heard together.
8. Both parties provided written submissions and evidence prior to and at the second hearing. The landlord and the tenant both gave oral evidence at the hearings, the latter with the assistance of an accredited Somali interpreter.
9. I have considered both the written and oral evidence and the written and oral submissions made by the parties and their representatives in reaching my decision.
10. Central to the resolution of this case are my findings about the following questions:
    • (a) Did the tenant abandon the rented premises in late May 2018 or at any time before 29 June 2018?
    • (b) Was the landlord otherwise entitled to take possession of the rented premises on or about 2 June 2018?
    • (c) Is the tenant liable to compensate the landlord for the condition of the rented premises at the time the landlord took possession and, if so, in what amount?
    • (d) Is the landlord liable to compensate the tenant for the rent paid for the time after the landlord took possession, the bond payment, the landlord's treatment of the tenant's goods and any inconvenience caused to the tenant and, if so, in what amount?
11. For reasons set out below, I find that the answers to both (a), (b) and (c) are no; and the answer to (d) is yes, in the sum of $8,304.55.

1. The term 'abandon' is not defined in the Act. The term 'abandon' is defined in the Oxford dictionary as 'leaving a place empty or uninhabited, without intending to return'.
2. Whether a tenant has left a place empty or uninhabited without an intention to return will depend on the facts. The Tribunal has previously considered the definition of abandonment. In particular, in Director of Housing v Zavos[5] the Tribunal said:

With the payment of rent, the connection of utilities, the regular attendance for maintenance, the existence of most personal items including furniture and a desire to return, in my view Ms Zavos has not abandoned the rented premises. While she may not be living in the property, she is using it. She has not left it empty or left it behind completely. She is returning periodically and has an intention to return more permanently.

1. The landlord claims the tenant had abandoned the rented premises by late May 2018 because:
   • (a) the landlord or his agents gave letters to the tenant dated 9 April 2018 and 16 May 2018 advising the tenant that the residential tenancy agreement was to end on 28 June 2018 and that the landlord expected the tenant to vacate the rented premises by that date;
   • (b) between 16 May 2018 and 4 June 2018, the landlord and his agents sent text messages and made telephone calls to three mobile telephone numbers provided as contact numbers by the tenant and received no responses;
   • (c) on 23 May 2018, the landlord attended at the rented premises, found no one there and found the letter sent 16 May 2018 in the mailbox and unopened; and
   • (d) on 2 June 2018, the landlord returned to the rented premises and found it in the same condition, with the tenant's belongings in the same positions, as on 23 May 2018.
2. The tenant claims she did not abandon the rented premises at any time before 29 June 2018. She admits that she had entered into a tenancy agreement for another property (the other property) on or about 20 May 2018, in preparation for the end of the residential tenancy agreement for the rented premises. She claims that:
   • (a) she had begun moving her goods and belongings to the other property but was not intending to complete the move until late June 2018, at which time she would have vacated the rented premises, closer to the date of the end of the residential tenancy agreement;
   • (b) she and her family began sleeping overnight at the other property from late May 2018, but she often returned to the rented premises, including to sleep overnight, while she continued moving her and her family's goods and belongings to the other property and prepare the rented premises for vacation;
   • (c) she checked the mailbox at the rented premises every time she returned there from late May 2018 onwards, but she never received the letter dated 16 May 2018;
   • (d) she never received the texts sent from the landlord or calls made on and after 16 May 2018; and
   • (e) most of her and her family's furniture, including sofas, mattresses, white goods and other belongings, remained at the rented premises on 2 June 2018.
3. I am satisfied that the tenant did not abandon the rented premises by 2 June 2018, and that it was not reasonable for the landlord to consider that she had, for the following reasons:
   • (a) Rent was paid up until 29 June 2018. Because rent had been paid as a lump sum at the beginning of the residential tenancy agreement, there were no regular payments of rent expected during the course of the tenancy as would more commonly be the case. Where there are regular rental payments expected, the failure to make those payments may be considered as evidence of an intention to abandon the rented premises. In this case, there were no regular payments expected so the absence of such payments could not be relied on as evidence of abandonment.

While the payment of rent alone is not conclusive evidence that a tenant has not abandoned a rented premises,[6] the tenant did not at any point before 2 June 2018 seek repayment of the rent she had paid in advance. Given that she had already commenced renting another property, I consider it more likely that if she had intended to abandon the rented premises before 2 June 2018 she would have sought repayment of rent paid in advance at that time, to avoid paying two sets of rent. I find the fact she did not do so to strongly indicate that she intended to remain in possession of the rented premises for the period she had paid rent for.

(b) The letters sent to her by the landlord on 9 April 2018 and 16 May 2018 only refer to the end of the residential tenancy agreement and do not request the tenant do anything other than vacate the rented premises by the end of the residential tenancy agreement. I do not accept that having received either or both of these letters would mean the tenant was more likely to abandon the rented premises before the end of the residential tenancy agreement than if she had not received the letters.

(c) The fact that on 23 May 2018 the landlord found the letter sent 16 May 2018 unopened at the rented premises is not inconsistent with the tenant's evidence that she was regularly returning to the rented premises after 20 May 2018. If the letter was sent by post on Wednesday, 16 May 2018, it is likely, given the relevant Australia Post delivery guidelines, it was delivered on Monday 21 May 2018 or Tuesday 22 May 2018. The letter would have only remained uncollected in the letterbox for one or two days before the landlord found it on Wednesday 23 May 2018. The landlord stated at the hearing that he took the letter with him when he collected it on 23 May 2018 so if the tenant returned to the rented premises after 23 May 2018 there would have been no letter to collect. Accordingly, I am not satisfied the fact the tenant did not receive the letter sent 16 May 2018 is evidence that she had abandoned the rented premises by 2 June 2018.

(d) The tenant claims she did not receive the texts sent by the landlord from 16 May 2018 onwards. Having reviewed the extracts of the texts sent,[7] I am satisfied the texts were sent to a mobile telephone number the tenant regularly used to communicate with the landlord and that she did not respond to those texts before 2 June 2018. The texts show the landlord attempted to call the tenant on 16 May 2018, sent her a text on that day asking her to call back, sent a follow up text on 22 May 2018 and a text at 10.23am on 23 May 2018 stating the landlord would be attending at the rented premises on that day. The telephone call logs show the landlord called the tenant on 16 May 2018 at 10.55am, 22 May 2018 at 2.50pm, and 23 May 2018 at 10.23am.

There is no evidence of the landlord texting, calling or otherwise communicating with the tenant after 23 May 2018 and before 2 June 2018, either to ask whether the tenant had abandoned the rented premises or anything else about the tenant's goods and belongings or the condition of the rented premises.

The landlord first advises the tenant he will be attending the rented premises in the text sent on 23 May 2018. The landlord provided photographs of the rented premises taken on 23 May 2018[8] which indicate the landlord attended the rented premises at approximately 12.50pm on 23 May 2018, less than 3 hours after the text was sent to the tenant. I note this notice of entry was not in accordance with ss 85, 86, and 88 of the Act and so was potentially an offence under s 91A of the Act.

I find that it is more likely than not that the tenant did received the three texts sent on and after 16 May 2018, and that she did not respond to them. However, I note that those texts made no reference to finding the rented premises abandoned or the landlord otherwise taking possession of the rented premises.

While it is unfortunate and poor conduct by the tenant to have failed to respond to the texts sent and calls made during the week 16 - 23 May 2018, I do not accept that simply not replying to three texts and calls over one week, and then not being present at the rented premises on 23 May 2018 when she had been given less than 3 hours' notice of the landlord's attendance, is evidence that the tenant had abandoned the rented premises.

(e) The landlord claims the tenant's goods and belongings were left at the rented premises on 23 May 2018 and the rented premises were in an unclean condition, with uneaten food left out. He claims the rented premises were in a similar condition when he returned on or about 2 June 2018 and the tenant was again not present.

The photographs of the rented premises taken on 23 May 2018 show the rented premises in what can be described as a state of semi-disarray. However, the placement of goods and belongings in the rented premises are also evidence of the tenant and her family part-way through a move to another property, as claimed by the tenant. The landlord did not provide any photographs of the rented premises on 2 June 2018 other than 4 photographs of the tenant's goods removed from the rented premises and left for collection.[9] In the absence of photographs confirming this, I am not satisfied the tenant's goods, belongings, and other items (such as uneaten food) were in the same position as they were on 23 May 2018 such that the landlord would conclude the tenant had not returned to the rented premises after 23 May 2018.

(f) The Act allows for a procedure by which a landlord can apply for a declaration from the Tribunal that rented premises have been abandoned.[10] This procedure is not mandatory. However, it is a common practice amongst landlords and their representatives. It provides a process in which a tenant is notified in writing in accordance with the Act that the landlord considers the rented premises to be have been abandoned; and gives the tenant an opportunity to attend a hearing before the Tribunal to challenge that assessment and give evidence as to why the property has not been abandoned.

The landlord did not follow this procedure in relation to the rented premises. No application for a declaration of abandonment was made to the Tribunal. Nor was there any other attempt to communicate with the tenant after the landlord attended at the rented premises on 23 May 2018 and when he returned on 2 June 2018.

I give this significant weight in assessing whether the tenant abandoned the rented premises on or before 2 June 2018. I find the landlord's failure to use the s 241 procedure, or otherwise advise the tenant that he considered the rented premises to have been abandoned, denied the tenant any opportunity to challenge the landlord's assessment or to have been made aware of anything other than that the landlord had attended the rented premises on 23 May 2018. I find that if the landlord had taken any steps of this sort, it is highly likely the tenant would have advised him that she had not abandoned the rented premises and confirmed that she intended at the very least to keep her goods and other belongings at the rented premises until she vacated the rented premises closer to 29 June 2018.

1. In light of the above, I find that, given that the tenant had paid rent up until 29 June 2018, was periodically returning to the rented premises and was keeping many of her goods at the rented premises, the tenant had not abandoned the rented premises on or before 2 June 2018.

Was the landlord otherwise entitled to take possession of the rented premises on or about 2 June 2018?

1. As noted above, the landlord did not follow the procedure for seeking a declaration of abandonment from the Tribunal. Despite being referred to as notices to vacate in the landlord's submissions, neither of the letters sent by the landlord on 9 April 2018 and 16 May 2018 were valid notices to vacate under the Act because they were not in the relevant prescribed form as required by section 319(a) of the Act. Even if they had been valid notices to vacate, the letters would only have entitled the landlord to take possession of the rented premises on or after the end of the residential tenancy agreement on 28 June 2018, and then only in accordance with a possession order made by the Tribunal if the tenant has failed or refused to vacate the rented premises.
2. The landlord did not provide evidence of having served any other notices to vacate to the tenant in relation to the rented premises or any possession order having been made by the Tribunal.
3. Accordingly, I find the landlord was not entitled to take possession of the rented premises on 2 June 2018 and that he did so in breach of the Act.

Is the tenant liable to compensate the landlord for the condition of the rented premises at the time the landlord took possession and, if so, in what amount?

1. The landlord provided evidence of the condition of the rented premises on 2 June 2018 in the form of photographs[11] and a building inspection report dated 13 June 2018[12]. The landlord also provided a copy of an entry condition report for the rented premises dated 9 July 2017 and signed by both the landlord and the tenant.[13] The landlord seeks compensation of $22,952.12 for the condition of the property when he took possession on 2 June 2018.
2. It is clear from the evidence provided that the rented premises was not in a reasonably clean condition or in good repair on 2 June 2018. However, the tenancy had not ended on that date. The tenant had not abandoned or otherwise vacated the rented premises on or before that date. There was no evidence that the tenant intended to leave the rented premises in that condition on 2 June 2018 or otherwise fail to meet her obligations under the Act.[14]
3. In light of the above, while I am satisfied the rented premises was not in a reasonably clean condition or, to some degree, not in good repair when the landlord took possession on 2 June 2018, I find that in taking possession in breach of the Act, the landlord prevented the tenant from otherwise meeting her obligations under Act prior to the fixed term tenancy coming to an end. The condition of the rented premises is a result of the landlord's actions in prematurely bringing the tenancy to an end on 2 June 2018. The actions of the landlord deprived the tenant of the opportunity to meet her obligations under the Act. Accordingly, the landlord is not entitled to compensation from the tenant for breach of any obligation under the Act or for damage to the rented premises as a result of the landlord's own actions of unilaterally, and in breach of the Act, taking possession of the rented premises on 2 June 2018.

Is the landlord liable to compensate the tenant for the rent paid for the time after the landlord took possession, the landlord's treatment of the tenant's goods and inconvenience caused to the tenant and, if so, in what amount?

1. I have found that the landlord took possession of the rented premises on 2 June 2018 in breach of the Act and that the tenant did not abandon the rented premises at any time. As the tenant had paid rent until 28 June 2018, I find that she is entitled to a refund of rent for the period 2 - 28 June 2018 inclusive, being 26 days at $32.88 per day,[15] making a total sum of $854.88.
2. The residential tenancies agreement refers to the payment by the tenant of what is described as a bond in the sum of $1,000. There is no evidence of this amount having been paid to the Residential Tenancies Bond Authority (the RTBA) by the landlord as required by s 406 of the Act. Section 408 provides that a bond is held by the landlord on trust for the tenant until it is paid to the RTBA. As the $1,000 paid to the landlord by the tenant at the beginning of the residential tenancy agreement has not been paid to the RTBA, I find that amount has been held by the landlord on trust for the tenant and must now be returned to her as the residential tenancy agreement has ended.
3. The tenant seeks compensation for damage to a number of her goods and other belongings left at the rented premises when the landlord took possession on 2 June 2018. She claims these items were left outside the rented premises on or after 2 June 2018 and that this only came to her attention when she attended at the rented premises on 4 June 2018. This is not disputed by the landlord. The landlord confirmed that he arranged for the tenant's goods to be removed from the rented premises on 2 June 2018 because he considered that the tenant had abandoned the rented premises. He also agreed that when the tenant attended on 4 June 2018 that he told her he had taken possession of the rented premises and would not allow her to enter the rented premises or return her belongings for storage there. The photographs provided by the landlord confirm that the tenant's goods were left outside for collection from 2 June 2018 onwards, including sofas, mattresses, white goods, and other items.
4. The tenant claims her goods were damaged beyond repair by having been left outside the rented premises from 2 June 2018. She claims compensation for the following, relying on receipts provided with the application[16]:
   • (a) Tuscany 2S sofa, purchased on 29 April 2012, for $1,599;
   • (b) Tuscany 3S sofa, purchased 29 April 2012, for $1,742;
   • (c) A coffee table, purchased 29 April 2012, for $799;
   • (d) York Modular sofa, purchased 19 June 2012, for $1,499;
   • (e) Ambiance wing chair, purchased 19 June 2012, for $899;
   • (f) Lamp table, purchased 19 June 2012, for $689;
   • (g) LG refrigerator, purchased 7 July 2017, for $1,800;
   • (h) Hisense television, purchased 11 July 2017, for $1,475;
   • (i) iMac desktop computer, purchased on 19 October 2017, for $3,350;
   • (j) Epson printer, purchased 19 October 2017, for $500;
   • (k) Cordless phone, purchased on 19 October 2017, for $100; and
   • (l) Simpson washing machine, purchased on 18 September 2017, for $600.
5. The tenant claims that by the time she became aware that her goods had been left outside the rented premises on 4 June 2018, her goods had been irreparably damaged by rainfall over the weekend. The landlord disputes there was any rainfall over the weekend and claims in relation to the goods for which the tenant seeks compensation that those goods were already damaged before the landlord removed them from the rented premises or in such poor condition that they had no value at that time.
6. The landlord has provided evidence of the weather in Tarneit for the period 1 - 17 June 2018[17] which shows the first rainfall was on 14 June 2018. On her own evidence, the first time the tenant attended the rented premises after 2 June 2018 was on 4 June 2018 so she cannot have been present to observe rainfall at the rented premises during that time. Accordingly, I give greater weight to the landlord's evidence and find there was no rainfall at the rented premises between 2 - 4 June 2018.
7. The tenant claims the goods for which she is seeking compensation were already damaged beyond repair by 4 June 2018 so she did not attempt to move them or store them elsewhere. This is confirmed by the landlord's photographs showing the tenant's goods still outside the rented premises on 9 June 2018.
8. I have found the landlord took possession of the rented premises in breach of the Act. I also find the landlord removed the tenant's goods from inside the house without the tenant's consent. The landlord also failed to notify the tenant that her goods were left for collection outside the rented premises. Accordingly, I find the landlord is liable for damage to the tenant's goods that could be foreseeable from them having been left uncovered outside the rented premises between 2 - 4 June 2018. Once the tenant became aware of what had happened to her goods, she had an obligation to reduce the risk of any further damage to her goods by arranging for their storage. Given that on her evidence she had access to the other property at the time, I find it would have been reasonable for her to have been able to store her goods there from 4 June 2018 onwards. If she chose not to do so, any further damage to her goods as a result of being left outside the rented premises is as a result of that choice, not the actions of the landlord.
9. In light of the above, I assess the tenant's claim for compensation in relation to her goods as follows:
   • (a) The Tuscany and York Modular sofas and Ambiance wing chair:

The relevant ATO guide[18] suggests household furniture will fully depreciate over 13.5 years. Accordingly, by 2 June 2018, the sofas and chair would be worth no more than approximately $2,900 together.

The landlord claims the sofas and chair were infested with cockroaches at the time he inspected the rented premises on 23 May 2018. He relies on photographs taken that day[19] to support this claim and refers to the invoice for a "pest bomb" as part of the work undertaken to clean the rented premises on the weekend of 2 June 2018.[20] I accept on the landlord's evidence that the sofas were infected with cockroaches and so would have required further treatment before reuse, further reducing their value. Taking into account the wear and tear of the sofas by the tenant and her family, I consider their combined value to have been $1,300 as at 2 June 2018.

While I accept there was no rainfall at the rented premises between 2 - 4 June 2018, given this time was during winter in Melbourne, I am satisfied the weather, including overnight moisture levels, would more likely than not have caused further damage to the sofas and the chair so that they would no longer have any value by 4 June 2018.

Accordingly, I find the landlord is liable to compensate the tenant for his removal of the sofas and the chair from the rented premises in the sum of $1,300.

The landlord makes similar claims about the coffee table being left with milk on it and infested with cockroaches. It is unclear to me how a table can be infected with cockroaches, so I do not accept this to have been the case. Taking into account depreciation and the wear of the tenant and her family's use of the tables over 6 years, I find their value at 2 June 2018 to be $500. However, I also find it unlikely the tables were damaged to the point of no value by being left outside between 2 - 4 June 2018. I consider the amount of damage caused to the tables being left outside for two days in winter is approximately $100 and find the landlord liable to the tenant in that sum.

The landlord claims the refrigerator was also infested with cockroaches. For the reasons set out at [32] (a) above, I accept this to have been the case and so, taking into account depreciation and fair wear and tear, I find the value of the LG refrigerator as at 2 June 2018 to be $1,000. The tenant claimed at the hearing that the way in which many of her goods had been piled outside the rented premises caused them further damage. In particular, she claims the door of the refrigerator had been broken. The landlord's photographs of the tenant's goods piled up outside the rented premises show they were not stored with any care. On balance, I find it is more likely than not that the way in which the landlord removed the refrigerator from the rented premises caused it such damage that it no longer had any value. As a result, I am satisfied the landlord is liable to the tenant in the sum of $1,000 for the removal of the refrigerator from the rented premises.

The landlord claims the television screen was cracked before it was removed from the rented premises. He relies on one of the photographs taken on 23 May 2018[21] as evidence of this. The photograph is somewhat blurred and does not clearly show any cracks to the television screen. Accordingly, I find the television screen was not cracked before it was removed from the rented premises on 2 June 2018. The landlord also claims the television was not wired for use in the rented premises, as evidence that it did not work. I do not accept the fact the television was not wired for use is evidence that it was not working. Rather, I find it to be consistent with the tenant being in the process of moving from the rented premises.

Given the sensitive nature of electronic equipment of this sort, leaving it outside between 2 - 4 June 2018 was more likely than not to have damaged it beyond repair. I find that, taking into account fair wear and tear and depreciation, the television was worth $1,000 as at 2 June 2018 and the landlord is liable to the tenant in this amount.

The landlord claims these items were not at the rented premises on 23 May 2018 or 2 June 2018. One of the landlord's photographs[22] shows what appears to be a printer left outside the property. Accordingly, I am satisfied it is more likely than not the computer and printer were at the rented premises on 2 June 2018 and were left outside on that day. For reasons given at [32] (a) above in relation to overnight moisture levels in particular, I find it more likely than not that the computer and printer were seriously damaged by being left outside for two days. After taking into account fair wear and tear and depreciation, find the landlord liable to the tenant in the sum of $2,000 for the computer and printer, taking into account fair wear and tear and depreciation from the purchase amounts set out in the tenant's evidence.

For the same reasons given above, I accept the tenant's cordless phone was left outside the rented premises and was seriously damaged by being left outside. As a result, taking into account fair wear and tear and depreciation, I find the landlord liable to compensate the tenant $50 for the loss of her cordless phone.

The landlord claims the washing machine was in the garage, and not being used, as evidence that it was not working before it was removed from the rented premises. I do not accept that to be the case because, again, its placement in the garage is also consistent with the tenant being part way through her relocation to the other property. The tenant claims that on 4 June 2018 she attempted to start the washing machine outside using a neighbour's power cord but was unable to make it start. However, I do not accept that leaving a washing machine outside for two days would damage it beyond repair and the photographs provided by the landlord show the washing machine placed separately from other goods left outside. Accordingly, I find it more likely than not, the washing machine was still in working condition on 4 June 2018 and so find the tenant is not entitled to compensation for this item.

1. The tenant also seeks compensation for the inconvenience caused to her and her family by the landlord taking possession of the rented premises and removing her property from the rented premises in breach of the Act. It is well-established that the Tribunal can order compensation for general inconvenience to tenants.[23] The tenant is the mother of 6 children, five of whom live with her and four of whom are under the age of 18 years. She has claimed her forced eviction from the rented premises, in breach of the Act, has caused significant stress and anxiety to her and her family, in particular to her children. Even taking into account the fact the tenant and her family had access to the other property by 2 June 2018, I accept that the significant inconvenience caused to the tenant and her family by the landlord's actions entitle her to compensation in the sum of $1,000.

1. In light of the above, I find the landlord is liable to the tenant in the following amounts:
   • (a) Overpayment of rent $854.88
   • (b) Return of bond held on trust $1,000
   • (c) Damage to the tenant's goods:
     1. Sofas and chair $1,300
     2. Tables $100
     3. Refrigerator $1,000
     4. Television $1,000
     5. Computer and printer $2,000
     6. Phone $50

1. Accordingly, I make the following orders:
   1. in R2018/29590, the landlord must now pay the tenant compensation in the sum of $8.304.88; and
   2. in R2018/34581, the application is dismissed.

[1] As tendered by the applicant as exhibit "SM-1".

[2] Part 9 - Goods Left Behind By Tenants And Residents.

[5] [2014] VCAT 283 (18 March 2014)

[6] Section 242 of the Act addresses circumstances where a tenant has abandoned rented premises on a date before the date up until which rent had been paid in advance.

[7] Usefully set out along with telephone call logs in the landlord's Tribunal Book (TB) at pages 50 - 53.

[13] Accordingly, the report is conclusive evidence of the state of repair of the rented premises on that day,

[14] To keep the rented premises in a reasonably clean condition or take care to avoid damage to the rented

[18] Australian Taxation Office, Guide for Rental Properties 2018, accessible via

https://www.ato.gov.au/uploadedFiles/Content/IND/downloads/Rental-properties-2018.pdf

[23] See, for example, EL v EA [2006] VCAT 2049 and Orkabi v Nahamias [2018] VCAT 269.