Sheer v Brady [2025] NSWCATCD 180;

1. It is common ground that the parties entered into a residential tenancy agreement for the property. It is not in dispute that this application is a residential tenancy dispute under the RT Act and the Tribunal is satisfied that it was submitted within time. Accordingly the Tribunal is satisfied that it has jurisdiction to determine the application.

1. Section 51(3) of the RT Act states a tenant must return the property in the same condition they were rented (fair wear and tear excepted); in a reasonably clean condition; and in the same condition as set out in any applicable in going inspection report.
2. The bond is the property of the tenant. The obligation is on the landlord to prove the tenant breached one of the obligations set out in s 51 (3) of the RT Act, and that there was loss suffered by the landlord as a consequence of that breach. If the Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord has proven, on the balance of probabilities, that an item departs from the condition at entry, the onus is on the tenant to demonstrate that the item falls within the fair wear and tear exception.
3. 'Fair wear and tear' is the reasonable use of the house by the tenant and the ordinary operation of natural forces: Regis Property Co Ltd v Dudley [1959] AC 370 (referred to with approval by the NSW Court of Appeal in Alamdo Holdings Pty Limited v Australian Window Furnishings (NSW) Pty Ltd & Anor [2006] NSWCA 224).
4. The Tribunal must not assess claims in relation to the tenant's bond from the standpoint of the fastidious and obsessive landlord: Pancio v Crompton & Jennings [2015] NSWCATAP 110.
5. The Tribunal must also determine whether the landlord's claim against the tenant's bond falls within s 166 of the RT Act, which sets out the items the landlord may claim from the tenant's bond.
6. Section 30 of the RT Act states that the incoming and outgoing condition reports, that are signed by both parties, are presumed to be a correct statement, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of the state of repair or general condition of the residential premises on the day specified in the report.

1. The Tribunal makes the following findings based on consideration of all the evidence before it. Whilst this decision will not refer to all evidence, it has considered all evidence when making this decision.
2. This decision will address each claimed item separately.

1. The landlord claims $1670 as a lease break fee. The tenants do not dispute that this amount is owing, however they submit that $240 rent was paid in advance and accordingly no amount is owing.
2. I am satisfied based on the rental ledger that the tenants were $240 in credit at the date the tenancy ended. Therefore the amount owing in respect of the lease break fee is $1670 less the credit held by the landlord's agent, being $1430.

1. The landlords claim that the interior of drawers and wardrobes were not reasonably clean, when the tenants vacated, which amounts to a breach of s51(3) of the RT Act. The landlord claims $352 for this item.
2. At the hearing, the landlord's representative agreed that this incoming condition report noted the inside of cupboards, wardrobes and floors were dirty and dusty.
3. The Tribunal is not satisfied that when the lease ended, the interior of drawers and wardrobes was not in a reasonable state of cleanliness, having regard to the condition of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy. Therefore the claim for interior cleaning is dismissed.

1. The landlord claims $550 in respect of pressure washing pavers with marks on them.
2. At the hearing, the landlord's representative agreed that the pavers were not damaged, but the standard of cleanliness between the tiling in the entry and exit condition reports "is similar".
3. The Tribunal has reviewed the entry and exit condition reports and is satisfied that the pavers were in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the date of vacant possession, having regard to the condition of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy. Therefore the claim in respect of the pavers is dismissed.

1. The landlord claims $330 in respect of steam cleaning and fumigation of carpeted bedrooms. The landlord submits that the carpets were noticeably stained as a result of an unauthorised dog, and/or were unreasonably stained.
2. The landlord's representative acknowledged that there were some marking and stains on the carpet at the commencement of the lease. The carpet was of an unknown age but was not new.
3. The Tribunal finds that the carpet contained some additional marks at the exit when compared to the entry condition. However, the Tribunal finds that these additional marks are not significant, and are fair wear and tear. The Tribunal dismisses the claim in respect of carpet stains.
4. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there was a pet on the property, or that there otherwise was a need to fumigate the bedrooms as a result of the condition of the bedrooms at the date of vacant possession. The Tribunal dismisses the claim in respect of carpet fumigation.

1. The landlord claims $2700 in respect of returfing 45 square metres of lawn at the front and the rear of the property.
2. The entry condition report shows areas of dead grass in the rear garden, adjacent to the pool fence, and other small areas where the dirt was visible in the middle of the grassed area.
3. The exit condition report shows full grass in the rear garden, except one area of brown grass near the house. The grass is neatly mowed.
4. There are no exit condition photographs in relation to the front garden. The landlord's agent confirmed at the hearing that the claim was based on the rear lawn.
5. The Tribunal is finds that the location of the brown areas of grass in the rear garden is different between the entry and exit condition reports. However the Tribunal is satisfied that the overall size of the yellow grass at the exit condition is not materially different to the size of brown grass in the entry condition report. The Tribunal is not satisfied that any increase in brown grass at the end of the tenancy was not more than fair wear and tear compared to the condition of the grass at the start of the tenancy.
6. The claim in respect of returfing is dismissed.

1. The landlord claims $700 in respect of hedging and $800 in respect of mulch on the basis that the gardens were not left in as nearly as possible the same condition as at entry.
2. The exit condition report shows neatly trimmed hedges. The hedges in the entry condition report contain a similar amount of brown patches as the hedges in the exit condition report.
3. There are no photographs to support the claim that mulching was required.
4. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the hedges and garden were not in reasonably the same state as at the commencement of the lease. The claim for hedges and mulching is dismissed.

1. The landlord claims $4150 in respect of scratched timber floorboards.
2. At the hearing, the landlord's representative accepted that the tenants advised of scuffs and scratches to the floor in the entry condition report.
3. The entry condition report photos show areas of floorboards with significant scratching. Some areas contain scratches of an approximately consistent depth, running in all directions. There are several larger scratches
4. I am satisfied that there are more scratches in the floorboards shown in the exit condition report. These scratches are still of a relatively consistent depth and in all directions.
5. In considering the reasonable use of the house, I am not satisfied that the additional scratches go beyond fair wear and tear when compared to the condition of the floorboards in the entry condition report. The claim in respect of flooring is dismissed

1. The landlord's representative withdrew this claim at the hearing.

1. The landlord claims $265 in respect of damage to the bathroom door frame. There is similar chipping to the skirting board and door frame to the bathroom in the entry and exit condition reports.
2. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the condition of the bathroom door frame is damage beyond fair wear and tear. The Tribunal dismissed the door frame damage claim.

1. The landlord claims $274.62 in respect of rectifying a build up of slime in the pool.
2. The exit condition report states the pool is clean and undamaged. This was acknowledged by the landlord's representative at the hearing.
3. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the pool was not returned in a condition as nearly as possible in the same condition as recorded in the entry condition report. The claim in respect of the pool is dismissed.

1. The tenant claims $885 in respect of scratched and damaged plantation shutters.
2. The entry condition report photos clearly show over 12 scratches on one plantation shutter blade, and two scratches on another blade, in bedroom 2. There is also a paint chip on the plantation shutter frame.
3. The exit condition report shows numerous scratches on three plantation shutter blades in bedroom 2, as well as a small piece of sticky tape on one blade.
4. I find that there are more scratches on the plantation shutter blades in bedroom 2 at the end of the lease compared to the commencement of the lease. I am satisfied based on the photographs in the exit condition report and the oral evidence of the parties that the scratches at the end of the lease are on three shutter blades.
5. I am not satisfied that a small piece of sticky tape amounts to damage to the shutters.
6. I am satisfied that these scratches are beyond fair wear and tear.
7. The landlord claims $885 in respect of the shutters. It is unclear how this amount is calculated. The landlord relies on a quote from Wynstan Blinds dated 22 November 2021, for two shutter panels with blades in the amount of $570, and a quote dated 18 November 2021 for replacing six shutter blades in the amount of $315.
8. I am satisfied that three blades require replacement. However, based on the quotes provided I find that the blades are approximately 5 years old.
9. In consideration of the effective life of plantation shutters, and on the best assessment of the evidence before the Tribunal, I find that an amount of $78.75 is the reasonable cost of rectifying the tenant's damage to the three shutter blades.

(1) The NSW Rental Bond Services is to pay the landlord $1,508.75, comprised of $1,430 in respect of the lease break fee and $78.75 in respect of damage.

(2) The balance of the bond is to be paid to the tenant.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.