Legislation cited: Residential Tenancies Act 1997 s 83; standard terms 46, 63, 64, 75

Cases cited: Alamdo Holdings Pty Ltd v Australian Window Furnishings (NSW) Ltd [2004] NSWSC 487

Alamdo Holdings Pty Ltd v Australian Window Furnishings (NSW) Ltd [2006] NSWCA 224

Dean v Singh [2017] ACAT 61

Edwards v Izzard [2016] ACAT 91

Hlubucek v Sinodinos; Sinodinos v Hlubucek [2007] ACTRTT 12

JSM Management Pty Ltd v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2011] VSC 339

Maroney v Bullard [2016] ACAT 33

Martins v Zhang [2014] ACAT 48

Regis Property Co Ltd v Dudley [1959] AC 370

TC Industrial Plant Pty Ltd v Robert's Queensland Pty Ltd [1963] HCA 57; (1963) 180 CLR 130

Texts/Papers cited Anforth, Christensen and Bentwood, Residential Tenancies Law and Practice, New South Wales (6th edition)

Date of Reasons for Decision: 19 September 2017

1. The respondents pay the applicants the sum of $5,465.86 within 28 days.
2. The Office of Rental Bonds release the bond ($3,000) to the applicants by way of part payment of the amount to be paid under order 1.

1. On 3 July 2013, the applicants Glenn and Donna Tankard (the lessors) leased their residential premises in the Canberra suburb of Forde (the property) to the respondents Florence Ogbonna and Ogechi (Barbara) Ogbonna (the tenants). The tenancy concluded in mid-January 2017.
2. Clause 64 of the Standard Residential Tenancy Terms (SRTT),[1] replicated in the lease, sets out the tenants' obligations regarding return of the property at the conclusion of the tenancy. It states:

(a) in substantially the same state of cleanliness, removing all the tenant's belongings and any other goods brought onto the premises during the duration of the tenancy agreement; and

(b) in substantially the same condition as the premises were in at the commencement of the tenancy agreement, fair wear and tear excepted.

1. The lessors claim that the tenants breached clause 64 and have applied to the Tribunal for orders that the tenants pay them compensation for their losses caused by the breach.
2. The Tribunal has power to order the tenants to pay compensation for any loss caused by the breach of a residential tenancy agreement under section 83(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997.
3. The lessors make the following claims:
   • (a) Damaged carpet - $1,195
   • (b) Damaged blinds - $TBA
   • (c) Damaged fridge - $2,867
   • (d) Damaged skirting boards and cabinetry in kitchen area - $7,491
   • (e) Damaged kitchen stone bench - $451
   • (f) Damaged walls throughout the property - $800
   • (g) Damaged ducted vacuum cleaning system - $60
   • (h) Cleaning - $660
4. The lessors also claim that the tenants breached clause 46 of the SRTT by not paying the final charge of $155.61 for consumption of water supplied to the property. Clause 46 states:

The tenant is responsible for all charges associated with the consumption of services supplied to the premises, including electricity, gas, water and telephone.

1. The lessors have paid that consumption charge to the supplier, and have applied to the Tribunal for an order that the tenants pay them $155.61 by way of compensation for their breach of clause 46.
2. The tenants deny each of the claims, claiming in each case that there was "no damage" and no overdue water consumption invoice. The tenants did not provide any evidence in support of their claims, but the lessors carry the onus of proof. I have considered the claims in turn.

1. Ms Lawless, the property manager who appeared at the hearing on behalf of the lessors, stated that the carpet was installed approximately 6 months before the commencement of the lease. This means it was approximately 3.5 years old at the time of the termination of the lease. Carpet, as a floor covering, deteriorates over time as a consequence of fair wear and tear. The Federal Commissioner of Taxation (the FCT) allows significant tax deductions for depreciation in recognition of this fact.[2] Even if carpet has to be replaced as a consequence of damage for which a tenant is liable, the carpet needs to be valued with reference to its age at the time of its replacement not the cost of its replacement.
2. Ms Lawless explained that the damage in this case was "a few spots" over an area approximately 100mm x 100mm in a bedroom, brown in colour, caused possibly by spillage of make-up, which could not be removed. Photographs tendered in evidence confirmed Ms Lawless' description of the damage. The lessors elected to replace the carpet because of these spots at a cost of $1,195.
3. The question is whether damage of this kind is within the ambit of 'fair wear and tear' for the purposes of clause 64(b). I am satisfied that it is not.
4. As discussed in Maroney v Bullard[3] 'wear and tear' entails damage or disrepair arising from natural causes (sun, wind and rain) or caused by a tenant, or other persons on the premises with the consent of the tenants, as a normal and unintentional incident of their occupation of the property. 'Fair' contemplates reasonable, and does not include intentional or negligent damage.
5. Relevant to the issue, in JSM Management Pty Ltd v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited[4] Osborn J of the Supreme Court of Victoria quoted from A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage regarding the meaning of 'wear and tear':

Wear and tear. In the context of leases, the phrase wear and tear - a 'reduplicative phrase', as linguists call it - includes not only the action of weather but also the normal use of property. A tenant is not liable to replace a carpet that becomes dingy from normal use during the tenancy - but a spilled bottle of black ink is another matter.

1. In my view, spillage of make-up on a bedroom carpet that causes irremovable stains is not fair wear and tear. The possibility of spillage should, in my view, have been anticipated such that the make-up should have been applied in a bathroom where spillage is unlikely to have caused damage and could have been quickly addressed.
2. In these circumstances, it becomes necessary to quantify the damage. I take into account that the carpet was near new at the commencement of the lease, but 3.5 years old at the conclusion of the tenancy. I also take into account that the property is of a high standard and commanded a rent of $750 per week during the tenancy. I can understand that stains of this kind justified the lessors' decision to replace the carpet, but the damage in question was "a few spots".
3. I accept that a measure of judgement needs to be used, and views may differ, but I have accepted Ms Lawless' reasonable (if not modest) claim that the lessors are entitled to damages of 10% of the value of the replacement carpet. Where the replacement cost was $1,195, I allow $119.50.

1. Ms Lawless provided photographs showing damage to blinds in a bedroom used by the tenants' children and, perhaps, damage to blinds in other parts of the property including a room described as the "front rumpus".
2. Over the course of the 3.5 year tenancy, I have concluded that damage of this kind constitutes fair, wear and tear. Blinds are, by definition, items to be opened or closed perhaps daily and are comprised of a combination of moving parts. They are, as a general rule, not robust. The FCT permits significant tax deductions for their depreciation. The photographs displayed minor damage that, in my view, could reasonably be expected over 3.5 years as a result of ordinary use even if other occupants with greater care might have been able to avoid or lessen the damage. Ms Lawless did not provide any quotes or invoices for repair or replacement of the blinds. I disallow the claim.

1. The lessors leased the property to the tenants with a fridge/freezer plumbed into the household water supply to dispense cold water and ice. The fridge/freezer was a fixture in the kitchen fitted into an alcove as part of the kitchen cabinetry work. The fridge was installed, new, six months prior to commencement of the lease.
2. I am satisfied on the evidence that there were holes in the fridge/freezer apparently caused by endeavours to chisel ice away from internal surface/s. The holes led to water leaking from the fridge which in turn caused rust to the bottom of the fridge. Photographs also showed noticeable dents to the door of the fridge/freezer, abrasion damage to the stainless steel freezer door perhaps caused by an abrasive cleaner and broken shelves and trays.
3. The holes on the internal surfaces of the fridge/freezer, causing water to leak from the fridge, were irreparable.
4. I am satisfied that because of the damage, the fridge was a "write-off" and had to be replaced. Ms Lawless tendered a tax invoice as evidence that the lessors purchased a replacement fridge for $2,867, which I was told was less than the cost of the fridge installed at the commencement of the lease. I was not told the cost of the earlier fridge.
5. The lessors seek an order that the tenants pay them compensation of $2,867 to cover the cost of replacing the fridge.
6. I am satisfied that the tenants have not returned the fridge in substantially the same condition as it was the commencement of the tenancy agreement, and that the damage did not arise from fair wear and tear. Rather, it was damaged by negligent use.
7. In ordinary circumstances arising from the tenants' breach of clause 64(b), the tenants would be liable to pay appropriate compensation by reference to the value of the fridge, if undamaged, at the conclusion of the tenancy. Compensation is not akin, for example, to an insurance policy that offers "new for old" as a contractual term of the policy.
8. However in this case the lease agreement, at item 15 special instructions, provided for the fridge to be left at the property for the tenants to use during the tenancy and then stated regarding the fridge:

If any repairs or maintenance are required throughout the tenancy, it is to be at the tenant's expense. If the fridge requires replacement, this is too at the tenant's expense.

1. Where I have concluded that the fridge required replacement, the tenants are liable for the cost of replacing it as a term of the lease contract. I allow the sum of $2,867.

Damage to skirting boards and cabinetry in kitchen area

1. The lessors claim for damaged joinery in the kitchen and laundry. Ms Lawless tendered a quote for $7,491 from a joiner to do the repairs. The lessors claim compensation in that sum.
2. The quote provided little detail about the component parts of the damaged joinery, and the descriptions of the damage provided by Ms Lawless have led me to conclude that the tenants are not liable for most of the damage.
3. The first component is the damage to the joinery that framed the fridge. The flooring and side panels were damaged by water leaks from the fridge. Where the tenants were responsible for those leaks caused by their damage to the fridge, in my view, so they are liable for the water damage to the floors and panelling. Ms Lawless explained that the fridge alcove area is approximately 1m deep and 1.8m wide. I allow the claim.
4. The lessors claim for replacement of the slide-out utility kitchen bin/s. They tendered photographs of the corroded and broken parts. The bins were not returned in substantially the same condition. The question arises whether the damage is fair wear and tear, but I had no evidence regarding the cause of the damage or the quality of the bin/s. The tenants did not suggest that the damage arose from fair wear and tear, and simply denied the damage despite the photographs to the contrary. I allow the claim.
5. The lessors claim for heat damage to the right hand oven drawer front. Ms Lawless tendered a photograph showing the damaged panel, possibly caused by resting a hot oven tray (or something else taken from the oven) on the drawer front. Regardless of the cause of the heat damage, I am satisfied that it did not arise as a normal and unintentional incident of using the oven and so cannot be characterised as fair wear and tear. I am satisfied that it arose from indifference to the maintenance and care of the panel. I allow the claim.
6. The lessors claim for flood damage to the cabinets in the laundry. At hearing, Ms Lawless explained that the damage was actually to the skirting that supported the cabinetry but not the cabinetry itself. This was confirmed by photographs. Skirting of this kind is also described as kickboards, and in my view that word is apt. The kickboards are often panelled with much more durable material in recognition of the inevitable knocks and scrapes arising from normal use of a kitchen or laundry. In this case, the skirting was water damaged. However, unlike the water damage to the panelling and flooring around the fridge, there is no evidence that the tenants did anything intentional or negligent to cause that damage. The water might have come from normal use of laundry taps or plumbing that leaked. Both, in my view, are fair wear and tear.
7. I acknowledge that the exception for fair wear and tear is not absolute. In Alamdo Holdings Pty Ltd v Australian Window Furnishings (NSW) Ltd,[5] with reliance on the decision of the House of Lords in Regis Property Co Ltd v Dudley[6] the NSW Supreme Court per Barrett J accepted a submission that a tenant, having the benefit of the fair wear and tear exception:

...is not free simply to stand by and see the demised premises reduced to rack and ruin by the compounded effects of normal wear and tear - that there is a point at which the tenant must step in and put an end to the downwards slide.

1. In Regis Property Co Ltd v Dudley, the House of Lords stated:

The exception of want to repair due to wear and tear must be construed as limited to what is directly due to wear and tear, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. It does not mean that if there is a defect originally proceeding from reasonable wear and tear the tenant is released from his obligation to keep in good repair and condition everything which it may be possible to trace ultimately to that defect. He is bound to do such repairs as may be required to prevent the consequences flowing originally from wear and tear from producing others which wear and tear would not directly 'produce'.

For example, if a tile falls off the roof, the tenant is not liable for the immediate consequences; but, if he does nothing and in the result more and more water gets in, the roof and walls decay and ultimately the top floor, or the whole house, becomes uninhabitable, he cannot say that it is due to reasonable wear and tear, and that therefore he is not liable under his obligation to keep the house in good repair and condition.

1. Despite these observations, I am not persuaded on the evidence that the tenants are liable for the water damage to the skirting. I do not know whether the flooding occurred suddenly and unexpectedly, for which the tenants could not be reasonably responsible. I do not know whether the tenants reported a minor leak that the lessors' agent did not attend to in a timely manner. I would have rejected the proposition, if put, that the tenants themselves should have repaired the leak.
2. I disallow the claim for repairs to the skirting boards in the laundry.
3. It remains for me to determine what portion of the joiner's quote fairly represents damage for which the tenants are liable. I have very little evidence upon which to rely, and Ms Lawless did not call anyone who could speak to the quote. I estimate that between 25% and 50% of the quote should be properly attributable to the damage for which I have concluded that the tenants are liable. However, where the evidence is so scant and it is for the lessors to prove, I have given the tenants the benefit of my estimate by concluding that 25% of the quote should be attributable to the damage for which the tenants are liable. I allow $1,872.75.

1. The lessors claim for the cost of repairing chips to the reconstituted stone kitchen benchtop. The lessors rely on a quote of $451 to repair the chips, and photographs of the several chips along the edge of the benchtop. The lessors accepted the quote.
2. The tenants deny that the benchtop was chipped, but it is difficult to accept that denial in the absence of any evidence in support and in the face of the photographic evidence which clearly shows the chipped edges.
3. A question arises as to whether the tenants are not liable for the chips on the grounds that they occurred as a result of fair wear and tear.
4. Fair wear and tear is an exception to a tenant's obligation under clause 64. It is for a lessor to allege and prove that premises were not left in substantially the same condition as they were at the commencement of the tenancy agreement. If a lessor can do so, it is then for the tenant to prove that the exception applies. In Regis Property Co Ltd v Dudley, the House of Lords stated:

If any want of repair is alleged and proved in fact, it lies on the tenant to show that it comes within the exception.

1. In this case, I am not persuaded that the chips were caused by fair wear and tear. The tenants made no attempt to suggest that that was so, for example by explaining how the chips occurred and submitting that they occurred from normal or ordinarily use, and instead denied that there were any chips. Properly cared for, stone benchtops should remain unblemished indefinitely, perhaps not from stains but at least from chips. I allow the claim for $451.

1. The lessors claim for incidental wall damage throughout the house. They tendered photographs of damage to the wall in the kitchen and the wall in the entrance to the house and of picture hooks attached to the walls. They estimate the cost of repairing the damage at $800.
2. The damage depicted in the photographs is not extensive. In each case, the photograph shows a single knock or scrape to what I presume are gyprock walls that are prone to minor damage when struck by a sharp or heavy object.
3. Ms Lawless accepted that a lessor must accept a level of damage of this kind but pressed the claim on the basis that there was "a little bit more than we expected". There might have been more wall damage that was evidenced in the photographs tendered, but it is for the lessors to prove. In any event, even if there was more damage of a similar kind than that depicted in the photographs, I am not persuaded that minor damage of this kind is beyond accidental damage arising from normal and reasonable use of the property particularly where it occurred in the course of a tenancy to a family that included children and extended for 3.5 years.[7]
4. The tenants may have an onus to prove that damage of this kind is fair wear and tear, but that is of little difficulty in the case of this wall damage. It is, in my view, a proper conclusion to draw from the photographs. I disallow the claim.

1. The lessors claim for a broken ducted vacuum cleaner head. The lessors' agent invoiced the tenants for the replacement head on 11 June 2015, and the invoice remains unpaid. The tenants refer to their email sent to the agent on 17 August 2015 complaining that "it took about one year and several reminders before your staff attended to our request to fix or replace the faulty ducted vacuum cleaner-head".
2. The evidence is uncertain. Regardless of any delay in replacing the head, liability turns primarily upon how it broke. The respondents contended in 2015 that it was faulty. I do not know. I know nothing about how it broke that might enable me to conclude that it broke because of rough handling to the point of negligence. It might have been faulty in the sense of breaking in the course of normal use. In all, I am not satisfied that the lessors have proved their claim. I disallow the claim.

1. On 18 January 2017, the tenants vacated the property. On 20 January 2017, the lessors' agent conducted a final inspection primarily for the purpose of determining the tenants' compliance with clause 64. On the date of the inspection, the premises were 'handed back' and the obligations under clause 64 arose.
2. In this case, the final inspection report notes numerous defects concerning the state of cleanliness of the property. Relevant to the lessors' claim, the report notes soap scum on the shower screen and taps. The lessors tendered a tax invoice for cleaning services described as a "full wipe over of the kitchen including pantry excluding oven", "3 x bathroom cleans including removing mould from grout on wall tiles", and "high-pressure hose upstairs balcony". The total cost was $660. The lessors seek an order that the tenants compensate them for this cleaning cost.
3. The tenants deny that the property was not properly cleaned at the conclusion of the tenancy. They claim that 'end of lease' cleaning was professionally done. They tendered an invoice dated 20 January 2017 from Perfect Touch Cleaning Services for "end of lease and carpet steaming" for a total price of $500. They claim that after the final inspection, there was a claim for re-cleaning only for one bedroom carpet and one shower head.
4. Opinions will always differ about whether cleaning has been done to an appropriate or sufficient standard. Unsurprisingly, a lessor will periodically think not. However, determinative of this claim, if a lessor considers cleaning has not been done to a sufficient standard the lessor must give the tenant an opportunity to correct it. In Dean v Singh,[8] I stated

... if a tenant has in some respect not complied with clause 64, the lessor must take all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss caused by the breach. The lessor cannot recover damages for any loss which the lessor could have avoided but failed, through unreasonable action or inaction, to avoid. So, for example, if there are areas which are not in substantially the same state of cleanliness or not substantially in the same condition as at the time of the commencement of the lease, the lessor must mitigate their loss by giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity to correct the breach.

What is a "reasonable opportunity" will depend on the facts in each case such as whether a new tenant has been secured and, if so, when the new tenancy is to commence; whether the tenant allegedly in breach of clause 64 is willing and able to rectify the alleged breach; and the timeframe within which the tenant proposes (and is able) to correct the breach. There may be other factors.

1. When a tenant is in breach of clause 64, it is for the tenant to show that the lessor acted unreasonably in failing to mitigate their loss.[9] However, in Dean v Singh,[10] I stated:

... it would in my view be unreasonable for a lessor not to give the tenant a reasonable opportunity to correct the breach and instead to incur the expense of engaging contractors to correct the breach and then seek to recover those expenses from the tenant. A lessor might choose to engage contractors rather than deal with the tenant, but such costs in my view could not be recovered from a tenant if the tenant was not first given a reasonable opportunity to correct the breach in the tenant's own manner or at the tenant's own cost.

1. The tenants claim that the property was handed back after the final inspection of 20 January 2017, and that there was no mention of any required re-cleaning, save for the carpet in one bedroom and a shower head. Ms Lawless acknowledged at hearing that the lessors did not give the tenants an opportunity to correct the lack of cleanliness. Rather, the lessors elected simply to "get it done" to the standard they wanted, perhaps to avoid the delay and inconvenience of dealing further with the lessees about the issue.
2. The question arises whether it was unreasonable for the lessors not to give the tenants an opportunity to correct the defect or, to put it another way, reasonable for the lessors not to do so.
3. In my view, as I stated in Dean v Singh, the starting position must be that a lessor must give the tenant an opportunity to correct the defect. Further evidence might displace that obligation, for example evidence of abandonment of the property, or evidence of the tenant's obvious lack of intention to clean the property (for example a statement by a tenant to that effect or a manifest lack of any cleaning at the time of final inspection).
4. In this case, I had no evidence from which to draw a conclusion that it was reasonable for the lessors to further clean the property at their own expense rather than giving the tenants the opportunity to do so or at the tenants' expense. Indeed the evidence is somewhat to the contrary. The agent's report of its routine inspection conducted on 11 October 2016 states, regarding the overall standard of the property, that "the property is being well cared for, it was a pleasure to inspect." The report then details in relation to the main bathroom, each of the two ensuite bathrooms and the kitchen "all clean and intact". For these reasons, I disallow the claim for cleaning costs.

1. The property was let with an automated irrigation system for the garden. The lessors engaged a gardener to maintain the garden and the irrigation system. Ms Lawless explained that concerns arose during the tenancy about the decline of the garden, and that the gardener reported that the decline was occurring because the irrigation system had been turned off. The gardener turned the irrigation system back on and the garden revived.
2. This report is somewhat consistent with the tenants' complaint in 2015 about their "repeated appeals" to the agent to regulate or turn off the automatic garden sprinklers which were "wastefully self-activating day and night, for months on end" causing "huge" water bills which were "gleefully forwarded to us by your staff for payment, and which we painfully did."
3. At the end of the tenancy, the tenants did not pay the consumption component of the final water bill for the period 29 August 2016 to 29 November 2016 in the sum of $155.61. There was no claim for consumption between 29 November 2016 and conclusion of the tenancy on 18 (or 20) January 2017, perhaps because the lessors had not received an account from the water supplier to enable them to quantify the consumption.
4. Under clause 46 of the SRTT, as set out in paragraph 6 above, the tenants were responsible for water consumption charges. I recognise that a tenant ordinarily has a measure of control about the level of consumption of services, including water, but that does not permit a tenant not to consume services to the detriment of the property or contrary to their obligations under the tenancy agreement. For example, under clause 63 of the SRTT, a tenant must not intentionally or negligently damage the premises and must take reasonable care of the premises having regard to their condition at the time of the commencement of the tenancy.
5. The premises is defined in the Dictionary to the Act as including any part of any premises and any land belonging to the premises. That includes in this case the garden.
6. Appropriate maintenance of many gardens in Canberra, and the garden in this case, requires regular water beyond that which can be expected from natural rainfall. Automated irrigation systems are installed for that purpose, as was done in this case.
7. The property was let with an automated irrigation system. It was also let on the basis that a gardener would manage the irrigation system as part of his maintenance of the garden. Having entered into the lease agreement on that basis, the tenants in my view had no grounds upon which then to object to the use of water to maintain the garden. Clause 46 required them to pay for the consumption of water irrespective of the manner in which it was used. The garden was in good order at the commencement of the lease, and clause 63 required them to take reasonable care of the garden during the lease period (via the gardener and irrigation system) having regard to its condition at the commencement of the lease.
8. The fact that taking reasonable care of the garden required water, and that the tenants were required to pay for that water, is no more than an observation about discharge of the tenants' obligations under clauses 63 and 64.
9. Despite the tenants' claim, I had no evidence that the water usage on the garden was excessive, nor evidence to support the lessors' claim that the garden declined for lack of water. Nor do the lessors claim that the garden was not returned to them in reasonable condition. It is also not necessary for me to make any finding about whether the tenants turned off the irrigation system. The only issue is whether the tenants should pay for the water that was used.
10. The tenants' admission that they paid all previous water bills, despite their view that the bills were high, is consistent with their recognition of their obligation under clause 46. There is no proper basis upon which they should be excused from paying the final water consumption bill. I allow the sum of $155.61.

1. The tenants contended that the property was handed back at the final inspection on 20 January 2017, and that there was "an unreasonable and unacceptable long period of time delay of more than 3 to 4 weeks" before the lessors alleged the defects now claimed in this application. They contend that the property manager who conducted the final inspection made a couple of observations regarding re-cleaning "which were promptly attended to and rectified the same day." The tenants contend that only when they asked for the refund of their bond "after almost one month of waiting in vain [that the lessors] triggered a litany of spurious allegations of damages and claims." They then contend there was no damage of the kinds claimed and no overdue water consumption invoice.
2. In Edwards v Izzard[11] the Tribunal dealt with the circumstances in which a lessor can make claims regarding breach of clause 64 after a final inspection. After noting earlier comments of the ACT Residential Tenancy Tribunal in Hlubucek v Sinodinos; Sinodinos v Hlubucek[12] and the Tribunal in Martins v Zhang[13] the Tribunal stated:

I accept ... that an oversight in an inspection may be capable of being remedied a short time later. Additional latitude may, and should, be given where there was damage that was not capable of being identified by a visual inspection. However, the final inspection report should be considered the starting point for any assessment of damage. It is usually not appropriate to allow compensation for damage identified after the outgoing report is complete unless the damage was not reasonably capable of identification during the final inspection or unless there is clear evidence that establishes that the damage was caused by the tenant. Obviously, the longer the time between the end of the tenancy and the identification of the damage, the harder it will be for a lessor to meet this evidentiary burden.[14]

1. In this case, the tenants' claim that the property manager who conducted the final inspection "made a couple of observations which were promptly attended to and rectified the same day" is contrary to the fact.
2. The lessors provided the Tribunal with only every second page of the final inspection report dated 20 January 2017 (pages 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9), but even on those pages the property manager has noted damage to the carpet and blinds, damage to the walls in the bedrooms, the entrance hall and the kitchen, broken slats and that the fridge was "heavily damaged and leaking".
3. I am satisfied that all of the lessors' claims that I have allowed were noted during the final inspection or involve damage that was, on the evidence, caused by the tenants.
4. The tenants also make the serious and regrettable allegation that the lessors' claims were made as an "after-thought, ill-intentioned and racially motivated". There is nothing to support any of those allegations, and I reject them. The application was made solely by reference to the objective evidence of damage to the property at the conclusion of the tenancy, and I have likewise determined the claim solely on that basis. The lessors' intentions and the applicants' personal circumstances were and are irrelevant.

1. For these reasons, I will order the tenants to pay the lessors the sum of $5,465.86 within 28 days comprised of the following amounts:
   • (a) Damaged carpet - $119.50.
   • (b) Damaged fridge - $2,867.00.
   • (c) Damaged joinery - $1,872.75.
   • (d) Damaged benchtop - $451.00.
   • (e) Water consumption - $155.61.
2. I will direct the Office of Rental Bonds to release the bond ($3000) to the lessors by way of part payment of the total amount payable.

[1] The Standard Residential Tenancy Terms are set out in Schedule 1 to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997

[2] Anforth, Christensen and Bentwood, Residential Tenancies Law and Practice, New South Wales (6th edition) at [2.187.13]

[3] [2016] ACAT 33 at [21] - [31]

[4] [2011] VSC 339 at [27]

[5] [2004] NSWSC 487 at [56] - [57]. The decision was upheld on appeal in Alamdo Holdings Pty Ltd v Australian Window Furnishings (NSW) Ltd and Anor [2006] NSWCA 224

[6] [1959] AC 370

[7] This conclusion is consistent with my findings in Maroney v Bullard [2016] ACAT 33 at [31] - [33]

[8] Dean v Singh [2017] ACAT 61 at [9], [10]

[9] TC Industrial Plant Pty Ltd v Robert's Queensland Pty Ltd [1963] HCA 57; (1963) 180 CLR 130, 138

[10] Dean v Singh [2017] ACAT 61 at [11]

[11] [2016] ACAT 91 at [56] - [61]

[12] [2007] ACTRTT 12 at [14]

[13] [2014] ACAT 48 at [9] - [11]

[14] [2016] ACAT 91 at [61]