1. Rafi Nahamias must pay to Maayan Orkabi $500.00.

1. Maayan Orkabi must pay to Rafi Nahamias $220.00.

1. These orders shall be offset so that Rafi Nahamias must pay to Maayan Orkabi a balance of $280.00.

In person with Mr Braun, Peninsula Community Legal Centre.

1. These reasons relate to the orders made in both of the above applications.
2. The application was heard on 7 February 2018 when each party gave evidence as did Ms. Blazevski a friend of and on behalf of the tenant. The tenant was assisted by Mr Braun from Peninsula Community Legal Centre.
3. The Tribunal reserved its decision and required the landlord to provide copy bank statements and any report as to the condition of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy prior to the delivery of reasons for its decision.
4. The landlord complied with that direction by a submission dated 11 February 2018 ("the submission"); in doing so he sought to put into evidence matters not raised at the hearing and of which the tenant did not have notice; the Tribunal cannot and has not taken those additional matters into consideration in delivering this decision.

1. The claim is for the return of a bond of $1300.00 said to have been paid to the landlord with one month's rent by two payments totalling $2700.00.on 23 and 24 January 2017; and compensation of $1000.00 arising from what was claimed to be an illegal eviction. This latter claim was made according to the decisions in Reardon & Reardon v Ministry of Housing (SCV unreported division) and EL v EA (2006) VCAT 2049.

1. The landlord rented the premises from one Kate Dennison commencing in late January 2017. Almost immediately he sub-let part of the premises, a bedroom, to the tenant, whom he known for some time, on a periodic tenancy at a rent of $1300.00 per month; the tenant was also asked to contribute to utility charges and had the use of other facilities in the building of which the premises formed part.
2. Going by the bank records put in evidence by the parties, during the tenancy, the tenant, transferred $4100.00 from her bank account to the landlord's bank account in January and March 2017 either by way of rent or the payment of a bond, depending upon which version of the events one accepts. The tenant claims to have made additional payments in cash. Whether or not any part of the payments she made in January were for a bond, no bond was ever lodged with the Residential Tenancies Bond Authority.
3. Shortly prior to 11 January, the tenant has expressed her wish to vacate the premises.
4. The tenancy ended on 11 October 2017 when the landlord changed the locks to the rented premises, which Ms. Blazevski was occupying at the time and while the tenant was at work, and thereafter denied the tenant access to the room.
5. Neither party had any regard to the requirements of the Act in giving notice to vacate.

1. Neither party produced bank records for any period beyond the end of March 2017. The landlord claims that the tenant refused to pay her rent in advance in October but has made no claim for arrears of rent.
2. The tenant produced no evidence of payments in cash at any time during the tenancy or of bank transfers in February 2017 or after March 2017. Clearly she made some additional payments, for all or part of the months of March - September inclusive, according to the landlord's evidence and his bank statement for March 2017.
3. The landlord's bank statement for February 2017 showed no deposit by the tenant. The landlord's explanation for the two payments in January was that the tenant was paying two month's rent in advance.
4. If, as the tenant claims, part of the $2700.00 paid in January was for the bond, an odd amount as the rent was $1300.00. per month, she adduced no evidence of paying rent in February, nor was there any evidence that she paid rent from late September 2017 until the tenancy was terminated.
5. The tenant claims that, by telephone text messages in October 2017, the landlord in effect admitted that she had paid a bond and that it would not be repaid until the end of the tenancy. The difficulty the Tribunal has in deciding just what these text messages conveyed is that on the tenant's telephone they were in the Hebrew language; the only translation provided was from the tenant and the landlord denied that the translations was accurate or should be read as conveying the meaning the tenant attributed to them. The landlord denied that the tenant had ever paid a bond.
6. It is for the tenant to satisfy the Tribunal that she has paid a bond and is entitled to a refund; her evidence does not discharge the burden of proof the law imposes upon her in that regard and her claim for the return of the bond is dismissed. She adduced no evidence at all of cash payments which could constitute the rent due during the tenancy and the bond.
7. The Tribunal finds that the landlord wrongfully denied the tenant access to the premises on and from 11 October and that the tenant is entitled to be compensated for the landlord's failure to adhere to the processes and procedures set out in the Act to regain possession.
8. The landlord in evidence admitted that he changed the lock to the tenant's rooms and terminated the tenancy as the tenant claims, albeit there is dispute as to the circumstances in which and why that took place. In the circumstances what else occurred is of little significance as the landlord's concession is an admission of a breach of the requirements of the Act in this regard.
9. The Tribunal finds that the tenant however was intending to vacate the premises without proper notice and proposed to do so at some time in October 2017.
10. In those circumstances this application and its facts can in part be distinguished from those which arose and applied in the authorities referred to in paragraph 5 above. The landlord's conduct did not have consequences and outcomes for the tenant analogous to the facts found in those cases.
11. Any case must be determined according to its own facts and circumstances. In effect what occurred here was that the tenant's departure was hastened and, albeit she had not given proper notice, she was not able to move, in an orderly manner at a time of her choosing; nonetheless the landlord did not seek or take possession in any manner which the Act permits.
12. For this aspect of the claim the Tribunal allows $500.00 compensation.

That part of the premises sublet to the tenant were not separately metered for utility services. By reason of Section 52 of the Act the landlord cannot recover the claims made in that regard.

1. No condition report was prepared with respect to this tenancy at the commencement of the tenancy; however a condition report dated 30 January 2017 as between the landlord and his head landlord was attached to the submission. That report clearly shows premises not in a reasonably clean condition and not in a good state of repair.
2. In all the circumstances, although the Tribunal finds that the tenant was not shown that report as at the commencement of the tenancy, the report is relevant as evidence of the condition of the premises at the commencement of her tenancy.
3. In the submission the landlord referred to "the attached quote"; no quote was attached and the Tribunal can only conclude that this was intended to be a reference to the document the landlord produced at the hearing as an estimate of costs of repairs prepared by him and not by any third person.
4. None of these claims was supported by any quotation or invoice for the repairs which, as at the date of the hearing, had not been carried out. The landlord claims to be a handyman and the amounts claimed are in effect for his anticipated labours on the basis that he could be held liable to the head landlord for the damage to the premises of which he complained. From the landlord's evidence, it is more likely than not that he intends to carry out any repairs himself rather than engage a third person for the tasks.
5. The items were claimed were as below.
6. $800.00 for carpet damage. Although there was no evidence of the age of the carpet there can be no doubt it was old and any claim made by any party against another with respect to this item would have been subjected to substantial depreciation if not depreciation to nil.
7. Photos of some carpeted areas attached to the condition report show pre-existing damage which in part at least resembles the damage which the landlord claims is the tenant's responsibility.
8. The report stated that carpets were stained in many areas and ripped in another and the photos attached to the condition show carpets in poor condition in all bedrooms. On all the evidence the landlord has not made out a claim for breach of duty or any compensation in this regard. No evidence was adduced as to the compensation payable if the Tribunal were disposed to award compensation. This claim is dismissed.
9. $240.00 for damage to window handles. As the landlord's photos evidence, the window winding handles were detached. The tenants' evidence was that they had always been loose and had come apart but that she did nothing to damage them. The evidence merely indicates that the winder handles appear to have "unwound" from the mechanism. The Tribunal accepts the tenant's evidence in this regard; the landlord has not adduced evidence of a breach of duty in this regard. This claim is dismissed.
10. $80.00 for damage to a door handle. The landlord's photos showed a door handle which was loose and needed tightening or refixing. The Tribunal accepts the landlord's evidence that this was required because the tenant had interfered with the handle; however, there was no evidence that it needed replacing, merely that a "handyman" if not a tradesperson from all of the evidence should be able to attend to it in minutes not hours. The landlord is entitled to some compensation for his own labour in this regard.
11. $500.00 for damage to a blind and door. The landlord claims the tenant was careless in opening an exterior door, bringing it into contact with an outside blind/awning, damaging both, and continuing to do so without regard for the consequences and without reporting the problem to him. The condition report was of no assistance in this regard. There was no quotation for the repairs and no photograph of the blind to show the extent, if any, to which it was damaged
12. The tenant claims poor design factors led to this damage in that the door could not be opened without impacting the blind. From all of the evidence the Tribunal concludes that the tenant is more likely than not liable for the damage to the door, but not the blind, for the reasons put forward by the landlord who is entitled to some compensation, again for his own labours, to rectify the damage shown on his photos.
13. $450.00 to sand and repaint a desk. From all of the evidence it appears that it is more likely than not that the tenant caused the damage shown in the landlord's photos. The tenant was principally concerned about the cost claimed rather than the issue of whether she was responsible for the damage.
14. The landlord's "estimated" repair cost, in the view of the Tribunal, would be likely to exceed the value of the desk; however whether or not that is the case, $450.00 is an extraordinarily high claim to rectify the damage indicated from the landlord's photos, again bearing in mind there was no quotation and it is likely that, if the landlord does anything to rectify the problem, he will attend to it himself. In the view of the Tribunal sanding and varnishing would not be likely to involve more than an hour or so work by the landlord for which he is entitled to compensation.
15. $150.00 to repair cupboard doors. A photo put in evidence by the landlord did show a damaged cupboard hinge. Regardless of whether this damage occurred during the tenancy, this was an old hinge on an old cupboard which may have failed through no more than age; there was no evidence as to how the damage may have occurred or how the tenant was responsible. An overall view of cupboards and the like from the condition report shows fittings in poor condition at the commencement of the tenancy. This claim is disallowed as a breach of duty has not been established.
16. $250.00 to repair and paint a wall. The condition report refers to "normal wear and tear and some chips" in many areas of the house and in particular in each of the three (3) bedrooms. The landlord's photos show some damage to walls, damage not evident from the photos attached to the condition report. Comparing all photos, some minor work for which the tenant is more likely than not responsible is required; again this would not involve substantial time or materials on the part of by the landlord for which he is entitled to compensation.
17. There was no evidence as to when the premises were last painted and what depreciation might be applied to a painting claim whoever brought it; however again from the photos attached to the condition report it appears more likely than not that the premises had not been painted in many years.
18. The total payable by the tenant for the landlord's repair works cannot be assessed precisely because of the paucity of evidence.
19. $220.00 is more likely than not to represent fair and reasonable compensation for the repairs referred to in paragraphs 32, 33, 35 and 38 above, allowing 5-6 hours work at $40.00 per hour for labour and minimal materials.