1. After hearing evidence from the agent of the residential rental provider, Ms McLaughlin, and considering the quote for works to be completed and photos submitted as evidence, I gave oral reasons and stated the orders that I would make.
2. Ms McLaughlin requested written reasons for my decision. The following reflects the oral reasons given on 11 August 2023, with some editing for clarification and context.
3. The facts surrounding the application are not disputed. The tenancy commenced on 26 September 2014 and ended 2 September 2021. The renter Pasquale Vorpasso is now deceased, and his daughter Jessica Vorpasso is the remaining respondent.
4. Damages are claimed for the installation of safety rails in the shower which were alleged to have been installed without permission. The residential rental provider has provided an undated quote for $2,500.00 plus GST for works, including removal and disposal of two walls of tiles, removal of a shower screen, replacing tiles on a wall, reaffixing the existing shower screen and associated works.
5. The claim is limited to the full amount of the bond. A bond of $1,430.00 has been paid to the Residential Tenancies Bond Authority. There has been no claim for compensation for an amount greater than the bond.
6. The residential rental provider has provided a written condition report dated 24 September 2014 which provides a comprehensive description of the property with no comments from the renters.
7. There are a series of photos provided by the residential rental provider date marked 6 November 2021 which show a bathroom. There are two safety rails installed on the tiled walls of the shower stall. These rails appear to be ordinary rails which are frequently used to assist people with impaired mobility.
8. The agent of the residential rental provider provided oral evidence that the reparative works for which compensation is claimed, had not been completed to the shower as the property had been rented again and the work could not be completed while the new renters were in the property. They also stated that the residential rental provider was unable to complete the works at the time as the rental agreement ended during Covid-19 lockdowns and the residential rental provider did not have the financial means to do so.
9. The claim is made under section 419A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic) which provides:

(1) A residential rental provider, renter or any other person who has an interest in a claim for a bond (including a previous co-renter under the residential rental agreement) may apply to the Tribunal for an order requiring the Authority to repay the bond.

(2) An application under section (1) must be made within 14 days after the residential rental agreement has terminated.

(3) On an application under subsection (1), the Tribunal may make an order requiring the repayment of the bond by the Authority to any party for an amount that does not exceed the amount of bond held by the Authority.

1. A bond is relevantly defined in section 3(a) of the Act as "an amount paid or payable by a renter to secure his or her performance and observation of the residential rental agreement or any provisions of the Act relating to the residential rental agreement".
2. Section 61(1) of the Act imposes on the renter and any visitor not to intentionally or negligently cause damage to the rented premises. In this instance the residential rental provider alleges that the renters installed shower rails without permission.
3. The residential rental provider is entitled to make a claim for what they allege is damage, or unauthorised modifications, that are caused by the renter if the residential rental provider has incurred a loss.
4. In this instance I dismissed the claim for the bond as the evidence provided was not sufficient to indicate the loss that had been incurred by the residential rental provider.
5. I was provided with an undated quote for work which had not been completed. The agent of the residential rental provider provided evidence that the work had not been completed as the rental agreement ended during Covid-19 lockdowns, and the property was rented again soon after.
6. I was not provided with any suggestion of when work would likely be completed, other than an indication that work could not be completed while there were renters in the property due to the inconvenience caused.
7. It is not appropriate to make an award of compensation on the basis of a speculative loss that a residential rental provider may incur when they complete works. It may be that the works are never completed. It may also be the case that the scope of works is amended.
8. In this case there had not been a loss incurred by the residential rental provider. They were able to continue renting their property with no suggestion of a diminution in the rent charged as a consequence of the renters' modifications, and there is insufficient evidence of the modifications having negatively impacted the valuation of the premises.
9. For the above reasons the application was dismissed.

[1] The Tribunal's order dated 11 August 2023 incorrectly recorded there being no appearance by or on behalf of any party.