1. CITATION: Stella Property Group Pty Ltd v Meehan [2011]
QCAT 92
PARTIES: Stella Property Group Pty Ltd
v
Cassandra Meehan
APPLICATION NUMBER: MCDT74-11
MATTER TYPE: Residential tenancy matters
HEARING DATE: 14 March 2011
HEARD AT: Brisbane
DECISION OF: Tammy Williams, Adjudicator
DELIVERED ON: 21 March 2011
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
ORDERS MADE: 1. The respondent pays to the applicant the
sum of $364.00 forthwith; and
2. The Residential Tenancy Authority releases
out of the balance of the rental bond
currently held:
a. The sum of $364.00 to the applicant;
and
b. The sum of $135 to the respondent in
full satisfaction of this order.
CATCHWORDS: Residential tenancy – water rates – water
efficient property – unpaid rent – flea treatment –
failure to mitigate loss
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
APPLICANT : Ms Wilde
RESPONDENT: Self-represented
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
[1] The issue in dispute is whether the applicant is entitled to $499.00
compensation from the respondent.

2. [2] Stella Property Group Pty Ltd filed an application with the Queensland Civil
and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), naming Ms Meehan as the respondent.
Hearing
[3] The Tribunal held a hearing at the Queensland Civil and Administrative
Tribunal’s hearing rooms in Brisbane. Both parties were present and gave
evidence under Oath. Appearing as agent for the applicant was Ms Wilde.
[4] The respondent entered into a fixed term tenancy agreement and leased the
property from 1 May 2010 to 29 October 2010. The applicant claims the
respondent failed to return the property “to the standard in which it was
originally rented.”
[5] At hearing Stella Property Group Pty Ltd argued it was entitled to
compensation for the following items:
• Rent (claimed to 17 November 2010 when the keys were returned to
the applicant) – $330.19;
• Flea Treatments – $135.00; and
• Unpaid water rates – $33.81.
Relevant Legislation
[6] The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and decide this matter pursuant to
sections 11 and 12 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act
2009 (the ‘QCAT Act’). This was a claim by the applicant against the
respondent for relief under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming
Accommodation Act 2009 (‘the Act’) for a residential agreement over the
property located at the address identified in the claim.
Relevant Facts
Is the respondent liable to pay $33.81 for unpaid water rates?
[7] The General Tenancy Agreement entered into by the parties provides for the
tenants to be liable for water supplied to the premises.
[8] Water invoices were calculated by the applicant on a pro rata basis for the
periods 2/6/10 to 23/6/10; 19/9/10 to 12/9/10 with a total of $97.98. An
amount of $64.17 was paid by the respondent, by way of an online deposit,
leaving $33.81 of the utility bill outstanding.
[9] The respondent argues she is not liable for this amount because the
property is not water efficient. The Tribunal notes the respondent’s email to
the applicant dated 3 May 2010 advising of the “toilet leak[ing] down into the
garage area… it’s almost pouring out and when it flushes it seems to take a
very long time and lost of water.”
[10] On behalf of the applicant, Ms Wilde provided the following response to
the tenant’s email:
MCDT74-11 / Page 2 of 6

3. “In relation to the leaking toilet, I have arranged for Bob Wrench who is
a plumber, to attend the property on Friday, 5 May 2010. Bob will be
providing a quote to supply and install water saving devices at the
property and I advise you will not be provided with water utility bills for
payment until the property is water efficient.”
[11] A signed statement from Bob Wrench Plumbing was filed by the
applicant on 10 February 2011, with leave from the Tribunal.
“I hereby confirm that water efficient devices were fitted at the above
property [294 Hamilton Road, Chermside], in the bath, shower and
vanity basin taps, and a new 6-litre/3-litre toilet suite was fitted. The
hose taps, kitchen taps and laundry taps were checked and were not
leaking.”
[12] Notwithstanding Mr Wrench’s statement, the respondent further argued
that “throughout the duration of our stay there, the laundry taps (for the
washing machine) leaked quite badly. We informed the real estate but no
action was taken on the matter.”
[13] The respondent was unable to provide the Tribunal with any supporting
evidence. Therefore the Tribunal relies upon the signed statement from Mr
Wrench, who was contracted to attend to the property and rectify any
plumbing issues. His statement appears consistent with the evidence
outlined in the series of emails exchanged between the parties.
[14] The Tribunal is satisfied the property was water efficient during the relevant
periods, and finds the respondent liable to pay $33.81 for unpaid water
rates.
Is the respondent liable to pay $330.19 for rent?
[15] The hand over date for the property was scheduled for Saturday,
6 November 2010.
[16] On that date the respondent handed over the keys to Ms Wilde, however
she was advised of items which needed to be attended to – additional
cleaning, mowing the lawn and removing the ‘cat urine smell’ from the
downstairs area.
[17] The back door to the property was left unlocked so the respondent could
later gain entry to do the cleaning. However when the lawn was mowed on
7 November 2011 by a contractor, he locked the back door. Upon learning
of this, the respondent contacted Stella Property Group Pty Ltd and
requested the keys be sent out to her.
[18] It is between the period of Monday, 8 November and Monday,
15 November 2010 that the facts are not clear. The respondent sought to
rely on a number of vague events which she says took place sometime
during this period. Without specifying any particular dates or times, Ms
Meehan states:
MCDT74-11 / Page 3 of 6

4. • She had a discussion with “Julia” (an agent for the applicant) where it
was agreed “two days rent” was not owed by the tenants; and
• “At a later date, Julia calls at 5pm to request I pick the key from her
house that night. I am unable to do so. The next day Julia says they
will send the keys out to me in the post.”
[19] In her evidence the respondent does not clearly specify the date when
she received the keys. Although Ms Meehan states she “did not check the
mail box over the weekend as I had been advised that the keys would be
posted out, and mail is not delivered on weekends.”
[20] The respondent also sought to explain the delay in returning the keys to
the applicant on the basis she did not have internet access (because she
was moving house); and therefore was unable to read the email message
from Stella Property Group Pty Ltd advising her the keys were placed in the
letter box. Ms Meehan further stated the applicant was aware she did not
have internet access during this period.
[21] The applicant’s agent dismisses this argument by stating “the tenant was
advised and contacted various times from the hand over date to return to the
property to clean.”
[22] The tenant eventually returned the keys to the applicant by post – and it
was received by them on Wednesday 17 November 2010. It is reasonable
to expect a tenant to be liable for rent until the handover has been
completed, the keys returned and their obligations to the property as tenants
have been finalised – such as affecting repairs or doing cleaning. Indeed
clause 18 of the Special Terms attached to the General Tenancy Agreement
entered into by the parties at the commencement of the lease, clearly states:
“Tenants agree to leave the property in the same condition as when
they moved in, fair wear and tear excepted. Wheelie bins must be put
out for emptying. Rent is payable up until all keys have been retuned
to Stella Property Group.”
[23] A hand over was ‘attempted’ on the 6 November 2010. The Tribunal
uses the word ‘attempt’, because the respondent was not able to hand over
vacant possession of the property to the applicant on that occasion, as there
were outstanding items needing to be attended to. Therefore prima facie,
the respondent still has possession of the property and is thus liable for rent
until those items have been rectified.
[24] There is no evidence to support Ms Meehan’s vague assertions that
‘Julia’ had agreed the tenants would not be liable for additional (albeit 2
days) rent. For instance, she could not provide the Tribunal with key facts,
such as the date or expand on the details of the conversation had.
[25] At the very least, the respondent was made aware on the morning of
Saturday, 6 November 2010 of the need to do additional cleaning of the
property and remove the ‘cat urine smell’ from the downstairs area. There is
no evidence of Ms Meehan cleaning the property on either 6 or 7 November
2010.
MCDT74-11 / Page 4 of 6

5. [26] Additionally the respondent should have been aware from the outset (as
per the Special Terms of the General Tenancy Agreement) of her liability to
pay rent until the keys are returned and she had completed her tenancy
obligations.
[27] The Tribunal is satisfied the grounds of the applicant’s claim for rent is
established and therefore finds the respondent liable to pay $330.19.
Is the respondent liable to pay $135 for additional flea treatments?
[28] The respondent states she arranged fumigation of the property to take
place on 1 November 2010 by Amalgamated Pest Control. This work was
said to be guaranteed.
[29] On Saturday, 20 November 2010, Ms Wilde inspected the property –
which she states “still smelt like cat urine and fleas were still present at the
property.” Therefore the applicant engaged a second pest company (Pest
Control Advantage) to provide the additional treatment.
[30] The issue before the Tribunal is whether the applicant had taken
reasonable steps to mitigate any loss or expense, by contracting a different
pest company to undertake an additional flea treatment. It is the cost of this
subsequent flea treatment which the applicant seeks compensation for.
[31] Because the applicant is seeking a compensation order to be made in its
favour, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters listed in section 421(1)
of the Act, including whether the lessor has taken all reasonable steps to
mitigate the loss or expense suffered. If this cannot be shown, then
pursuant to section 362(3)(b) the lessor is not entitled to receive
compensation for any loss or expense that could have been avoided by
taking the steps.
[32] The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal was that the tenant did not
arrange for the property to be treated again for fleas. After making enquiries
with Amalgamated Pest Control, it apparently “could not return to the
property for another week” to provide another treatment. Therefore the
applicant claims it was justified in contracting a different company to provide
the pest control treatment.
[33] The respondent strongly refuted the applicant’s claims.
“Amalgamated [Pest Control] advised me that, looking back through
their records, they had various timeslots available, before the 29 Nov,
when they could have retreated (sic) the house. They are unsure as
to why the respray (sic) was not scheduled for one of these earlier
times.”
The Tribunal notes neither party obtained a written statement from
Amalgamated Pest Control, despite the obvious assistance it would have
provided to the Tribunal in determining this matter.
MCDT74-11 / Page 5 of 6

6. [34] The respondent also relied upon a sworn affidavit in which she detailed
relevant events.
20 November 2010 – “Michelle attends the property – 4 days after the
receipt of the keys. She calls me at 12.29pm about the fleas and I
remind her of Amalgamated’s guarantee. She requests the receipt,
and I remind her that I gave her the only copy.”
23 November 2010 – “Unbeknown to me, Julia calls Amalgamated
and arranges a flea service call for 29 November 2010. This is three
days after Michelle reinspects the property, and one week after
receiving the keys in the mail.”
25 November 2010 – “New tenants move in and Julia calls
Amalgamated to “postpone” the service call.”
26 November 2010 – “5.24pm: Michelle calls to advise me that she
had another company to fumigate the property at a cost of $135.”
[35] From the evidence, it is unclear whether there is any truth to the
applicant’s claim that Amalgamated Pest Control was unavailable to re-
fumigate the property before the 29 November 2010. Nonetheless, the
Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant took reasonable steps to mitigate any
loss or expense suffered.
[36] The evidence before the Tribunal shows that the applicant received the
keys to the premises on 17 November 2010. The applicant was then
reminded on 20 November 2011 by the respondent of Amalgamated Pest
Control’s guarantee. There is no evidence to show that the applicant called
Amalgamated Pest Control to re-fumigate the property before the 23
November 2010. Hence, since the date in which Stella Property Group Pty
Ltd received possession of the property on 17 November 2010 until the 23
November 2010 – some six days – no steps were taken by the applicant to
evoke Amalgamated Pest Control’s Guarantee.
[37] Therefore because of this failure to take reasonable steps to mitigate any
loss or expense, the Tribunal is not satisfied the respondent should be liable
to compensate the applicant the cost it incurred for the additional flea
treatment.
Conclusion
[38] In consideration of the matters mentioned above, the Queensland Civil
and Administrative Tribunal is satisfied Stella Property Group Pty Ltd has
only established part of its claim. It is therefore entitled to compensation for:
(a) Part payment of one weeks rent, being $330.19; and
(b) Unpaid water rates, being $33.81 - therefore totalling an amount of
$364.00.
This amount is to be deducted from the balance of the rental bond currently
held by the Residential Tenancies Authority, in full satisfaction of this order.
MCDT74-11 / Page 6 of 6